Mary H. H. Ensom

Post hoc power analysis: an idea whose time has passed?

Using a hypothetical scenario typifying the experience that authors have when submitting manuscripts that report results of negative clinical trials, the pitfalls of a post hoc analysis are illustrated. We used the same scenario to explain how confidence intervals are used in interpreting results of clinical trials. We showed that confidence intervals better inform readers about the possibility of an inadequate sample size than do post hoc power calculations.

Mycophenolate mofetil for solid organ transplantation: does the evidence support the need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring?

The need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring (CPM) of the immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been debated. Using a previously developed algorithm, the authors reviewed the evidence to support or refute the utility of CPM of MMF. First, MMF has proven efficacy for prevention of organ rejection in renal and cardiac transplant populations. In addition, the pharmacologically active form of MMF, mycophenolic acid (MPA), can be measured readily in plasma, and relationships between the incidence of rejection and MPA predose concentrations and MPA area under the curve (AUC) have been reported. A lower limit of the therapeutic range (MPA predose concentrations >1.55 &mgr;g/mL, as measured by enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique [EMIT], or MPA AUC >30 or 40 &mgr;g · h/mL, as measured by high-performance liquid chromatography [HPLC]) has been suggested to prevent rejection in renal allograft patients. Similarly, in cardiac transplant patients, decreased incidences of organ rejection have been reported in patients with MPA concentrations >2 or 3 &mgr;g/mL (using EMIT) and total AUC values >42.8 &mgr;g · h/mL (using HPLC). However, the relationship between pharmacokinetic parameters and adverse events in renal and cardiac transplant patients remains unclear. Due to the nature of antirejection therapy, the pharmacologic response of MMF is not readily assessable, and therapy is life-long. MPA pharmacokinetics exhibit large inter- and intrapatient variability and may be altered in specific patient populations due to changes in protein binding, concomitant disease states, or interactions with concurrent immunosuppressants. Therefore, on the basis of current evidence, CPM can provide more information regarding efficacy of MMF than clinical judgment alone in select patient populations. However, further randomized, prospective trials are required to clarify unresolved issues. Specifically, an upper limit of the therapeutic range, above which the risk of side effects is increased, needs to be elucidated for MMF therapy. Other future directions for research include determining a practical limited sampling strategy for MPA AUC; clarifying the relationship between free MPA concentrations, efficacy, and toxicity; and defining the pharmacodynamic relationship between activity of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (the enzyme inhibited by MPA) and risk of rejection or adverse effects.

Treatment of Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome (APS) in Pregnancy: A Randomized Pilot Trial Comparing Low Molecular Weight Heparin to Unfractionated Heparin

OBJECTIVE To compare low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), specifically dalteparin, to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the treatment of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) in pregnancy. METHODS In a tertiary referral centre, 28 women met the 1999 International Consensus Criteria for APS, based on their obstetrical history and APS serology. The women were randomized, using a random numbers table with blocks of 12, to receive either prophylactic dosing of dalteparin or UFH starting either preconceptionally or early in pregnancy. All women also received low-dose acetylsalicylic acid, started preconceptionally. The primary outcome was a live birth. The secondary outcomes were maternal and fetal complications. RESULTS Of the 14 women who received the LMWH, dalteparin, and the 14 women who received UFH, 1 woman in each group did not conceive. Nine of the 13 women (69%) given dalteparin had a successful pregnancy (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-91%), compared to 4 out of the 13 women (31%) in the UFH group (95% CI, 9-61%). Nine women in total had spinal or epidural anaesthesia, and there were no complications overall. CONCLUSION Dalteparin may be an effective alternative to UFH for treatment of APS in pregnancy. A multicentre randomized trial is needed to determine benefit-to-risk ratios for the use of dalteparin and UFH to treat this high-risk obstetrical condition. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are also recommended to maximize therapeutic response and minimize toxicity.

Pharmacogenetics of the proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 mediates the major metabolic transformations of the proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole. Genetic polymorphism of CYP2C19 can lead to significant phenotypic variation in the activity of this isoenzyme and thus in the metabolism of PPIs. We systematically reviewed the pharmacogenetic studies of PPIs with respect to the effects of CYP2C19 polymorphism on the clinical outcomes of PPI therapy. We searched MEDLINE (January 1966‐August 2002) and EMBASE (January 1988‐August 2002) for English‐language articles on the pharmacogenetics of PPIs; the search was supplemented by a bibliographic review of all relevant articles. Seventeen pertinent citations were identified, and the quality (level) of evidence for each was categorized according to the rating scale of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. We found that the relationship between CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism and clinical outcomes after PPI therapy has not yet been clearly delineated. Virtually all pharmacogenetic studies of PPIs have been performed in Japanese men; thus, the clinical relevance of CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism in non‐Asian patients and women is unknown. Differences among dual‐ and triple‐therapy drug regimens make it difficult to compare H. pylori eradication studies and assess their applicability to current practice patterns. Drug adherence, a pivotal factor in the success of eradication therapy, was addressed in only four trials. Future directions for research include performing more studies with larger sample sizes, particularly in non‐Asian populations and women; measuring plasma PPI concentrations to directly correlate H. pylori infection and ulcer cure rates with plasma drug availability; expanding the study population to patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease; and exploring the influence of CYP3A4 in the success or failure of PPI therapy. Although CYP2C19 genotyping is currently only a research instrument, it may be a valuable clinical tool in select patients to ensure optimal PPI therapy.

Pharmacogenetics: The therapeutic drug monitoring of the future?

Genetic variability in drug response occurs as a result of molecular alterations at the level of drug-metabolising enzymes, drug targets/receptors, and drug transport proteins. In this paper, we discuss the possibility that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the future will involve not the mere measurement and interpretation of drug concentrations but will include both traditional TDM and pharmacogenetics-oriented TDM. In contrast to traditional TDM, which cannot be performed until after a drug is administered to the patient. pharmacogenetics-oriented TDM can be conducted even before treatment begins. Other advantages of genotyping over traditional TDM include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) it does not require the assumption of steady-state conditions (or patient compliance) for the interpretation of results; (ii) it can often be performed less invasively (with saliva, hair root or buccal swab samples); (iii) it can provide predictive value for multiple drugs [e.g. a number of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, CYP2C 19 or CYP2C9 substrates] rather than a single drug; (iv) it provides mechanistic, instead of merely descriptive, information; and (v) it is constant over an individuals lifetime (and not influenced by concurrent drug administration, alteration in hormonal levels or disease states). Pharmacogenetic information can be applied a priori for initial dose stratification and identification of cases where certain drugs are simply not effective. However, traditional TDM will still be required for all of the reasons that we use it now. In current clinical practice, pharmacogenetic testing is performed for only a few drugs (e.g. mercaptopurine, thioguanine, azathioprine, trastuzumab and tacrine) and in a limited number of teaching hospitals and specialist academic centres. We propose that other drugs (e.g. warfarin, phenytoin, codeine, oral hypoglycaemics, tricyclic antidepressants, aminoglycosides, digoxin, cyclosporin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, theophylline and clozapine) are potential candidates for pharmacogenetics-oriented TDM. However, prospective studies of phaymacogenetics-oriented TDM must be performed to determine its efficacy and cost effectiveness in optimising therapeutic effects while minimising toxicity. In the future, in addition to targeting a patients drug concentrations within a therapeutic range, pharmacists are likely to be making dosage recommendations for individual drugs on the basis of the individual patients genotype. As we enter the era of personalised drug therapy, we will be able to identify not only the best drug to be administered to a particular patient, but also the most effective and safest dosage from the outset of therapy.

Low-molecular-weight heparins in pregnancy.

We conducted a systematic review, with MEDLINE and Cochrane Library data base searches and bibliographic reviews, of English‐language reports describing therapy with low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) in pregnancy. Altogether 40 citations, excluding abstracts, were identified. When the quality of evidence was categorized according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2 articles were level I, 3 were level II‐1, 3 were level II‐2, 4 were level II‐3, 9 were level III, and the remaining 19 were classified as other (i.e., below level III). Of the 728 pregnant women and 1 postpartum woman described in the 40 citations, 340 (47%) received dalteparin, 192 (26%) enoxaparin, 108 (15%) certoparin, 54 (7%) nadroparin, 30 (4%) other LMWH, and 6 (< 1%) unspecified. The indication for LMWH in most patients (606 pregnancies, 83%) was for thromboprophylaxis. Daily doses ranged from 2500–22,000 U for dalteparin, 20 mg (2000 U)–80 mg (8000 U) for enoxaparin, 3000 U for certoparin, and 2050–15,000 U for nadroparin. Regimens included fixed dosages, increasing dosages as pregnancy progressed, dosages based on body weight, and dosages titrated according to anti‐Xa levels. Duration of therapy ranged from a single dose to 476 days. Maternal anti‐Xa levels were reported for 255 pregnancies. Target anti‐Xa levels ranged from 0.1–0.6 U/ml and measured values from 0.0–0.7 U/ml. Major maternal findings were 18 local and generalized skin reactions, 27 bleeding complications, 9 thromboembolic events, 8 deep vein thromboses, 1 bilateral renal vein thrombosis, 4 pulmonary emboli, 1 hepatic infarction, 4 cases of thrombophlebitis, 12 cases of preeclampsia, 1 placental abruption, and 2 osteoporotic vertebral fractures. A major fetal finding was lack of anti‐Xa activity in fetal or cord blood. Published experience suggests that LMWHs are generally safe and effective when administered for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. Until prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing them with unfractionated heparin are performed, their benefits in pregnancy will remain inconclusive.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic Monitoring of Midazolam in Critically Ill Patients

Midazolam is a commonly used sedative in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care unit (ICU) settings worldwide. We used a nine‐step decision‐making algorithm to determine whether therapeutic monitoring of midazolam in the ICU is warranted. Midazolam has a higher clearance and shorter half‐life than other benzodiazepines, and prolonged sedation is achieved with continuous infusion. There appears to be very good correlation between plasma concentrations of both midazolam and its active metabolite, α1‐hydroxymidazolam, and the degree of sedation. However, due to high interpatient variability, it is not possible to predict the level of sedation in any given individual based on plasma concentration of midazolam or its metabolites. Moreover, no simple and practical assay is available to quantitate midazolam plasma concentrations in the acute ICU setting. Many scales are available to assess the sedative effects of midazolam. Because the plasma concentration of midazolam required to achieve a constant level of sedation is highly variable, it is usually more prudent for the clinician to monitor for sedation with a validated clinical scale than by plasma concentrations alone. Various physiologic parameters, including age‐related effects, compromised renal function, and liver dysfunction affect the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and α1‐hydroxymidazolam. Although routine drug monitoring for all critically ill patients receiving midazolam is not recommended, this practice is likely beneficial in patients with neurologic damage in whom sedation cannot be assessed and in patients who have renal failure with a prolonged time to awakening.

The role of therapeutic monitoring of everolimus in solid organ transplantation.

Everolimus is a novel proliferation signal inhibitor used in immunosuppressive therapies for the prevention of acute and chronic rejection. A role for everolimus drug monitoring has been suggested because of the potential for improving efficacy and reducing adverse effects. Everolimus has proven efficacy for prevention of rejection in adult de novo renal and cardiac transplant recipients. Similar effects have been shown in pediatric renal transplant patients. Several analytic methods are available to quantify everolimus concentrations. A good relationship exists between everolimus concentration and pharmacological response. Mere clinical monitoring of efficacy is insufficient because clinical presentations of graft rejection vary for each patient and are nonspecific. Thus, the authors have used a previously published 9-step decision-making algorithm to evaluate the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus. The recommended therapeutic range for everolimus is a trough concentration of 3 to 8 ng/mL, as concentrations over 3 ng/mL have been associated with a decreased incidence of rejection, and concentrations >8 ng/mL with increased toxicity. Everolimus exhibits interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. African American patients have higher apparent clearance, whereas patients with hepatic dysfunction or those on concomitant medications with potent cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor or inducer properties have lower or higher apparent clearance, respectively. Solid organ transplant recipients will likely be maintained on immunosuppressant therapy for the life of the graft and/or recipient and thus are likely to benefit from clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring. Based on the available evidence, therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus may provide additional information on efficacy and safety than sound clinical judgment alone. Patients on everolimus who have problems with absorption, who take concurrent cytochrome P450 inhibitors or inducers, or are noncompliant will attain the greatest benefit from drug monitoring.

Methods for Clinical Monitoring of Cyclosporin in Transplant Patients

Cyclosporin was introduced into clinical practice in the early 1980s and has since been shown to prolong survival for transplant recipients. Because cyclosporin is a narrow therapeutic index drug and there are significant consequences associated with ‘subtherapeutic’ and ‘supratherapeutic’ concentrations, cyclosporin therapy is monitored as part of routine patient follow-up. However, the optimal method for the therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin has yet to be defined. Currently, the most common method involves monitoring pre-dose trough concentrations, but this method is less than ideal.Other methods of monitoring cyclosporin therapy include monitoring the area under the concentration-time curve, limited sampling strategies, monitoring of single concentrations other than troughs and pharmacodynamic monitoring. Bayesian forecasting has been used successfully in clinical practice with other drugs with narrow therapeutic indices. However, few studies are available regarding Bayesian forecasting and cyclosporin. Existing studies are preliminary in nature and involve the old Sandimmun® formulation rather than the Neoral® formulation. Although these methods show promise, they have not gained widespread acceptance. This is because of their impracticality and the lack of prospective studies comparing other monitoring methods with trough concentration monitoring. Further comparative studies evaluating the impact of the specific monitoring method on definite patient outcomes are warranted.

Corticosteroid Interactions with Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate, and Sirolimus: Fact or Fiction?

OBJECTIVE To review the current clinical evidence on the effects of corticosteroid interactions with the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and sirolimus. DATA SOURCES Articles were retrieved through MEDLINE (1966-February 2008) using the terms corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, sirolimus, drug interactions, CYP3A4, P-glycoprotein, and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases. Bibliographies were manually searched for additional relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION All English-language studies dealing with drug interactions between corticosteroids and cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and sirolimus were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS Corticosteroids share common metabolic and transporter pathways, the cytochrome P450 and P-glycoprotein (P-gp/ABCB1) systems, respectively, with cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus. As a group, corticosteroids induce the CYP3A4 and P-gp pathways; however, a few exceptions exist and the impact on a patients immunosuppressant regimen may be critical. Corticosteroids also have demonstrated an induction effect on the uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase enzymes and multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 involved in mycophenolates disposition. Successful corticosteroid withdrawal regimens have been reported; however, only few studies have examined the effects of steroid withdrawal on the remaining immunosuppressive regimens. To date, the clinical impact of steroid withdrawal on disposition of other immunosuppressive agents is not well characterized, and reports of such drug-drug interactions are conflicting. CONCLUSIONS While our understanding of the clinical impact of steroid-immunosuppressant interactions is limited, it remains a fact that corticosteroids have complex induction and inhibition interactions with common metabolic and transport pathways. Given the complex interaction of corticosteroids on crucial metabolic enzymes and transporter proteins, monitoring of immunosuppressive agents during steroid withdrawal is warranted to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.