Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Everolimus”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Everolimus in de novo cardiac transplantation: pharmacokinetics, therapeutic range, and influence on cyclosporine exposure.

We evaluated exposure, safety, and efficacy data from an international Phase 3 trial of everolimus in de novo heart transplantation to characterize the longitudinal pharmacokinetics of everolimus and cyclosporine and to identify a therapeutic concentration range for everolimus. We randomized 634 patients to receive either 0.75 mg everolimus twice daily, 1.5 mg everolimus twice daily, or azathioprine in addition to corticosteroids and cyclosporine. At 8 visits during the first 6 months after transplantation, we obtained 2,328 everolimus trough levels (Cmin) and 129 area-under-the-curve (AUC) profiles over the dosing interval in patients treated with everolimus; we collected 3,258 cyclosporine trough concentrations and 174 profiles in all 3 treatment arms. We used median-effect analysis to characterize exposure-response associations between everolimus average Cmin vs freedom from biopsy-confirmed acute rejection; maximum cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, triglyceride, and creatinine levels; and minimum leukocyte and platelet counts. Everolimus Cmins averaged 5.2 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 9.4 +/- 6.3 ng/ml at the lower and upper dose levels. A 17% underproportionality was noted in Cmins; however, peak exposure and AUC were consistent with dose proportionality. Everolimus exposure was stable during the 6-month period. Interindividual variability was 37% for AUC and 40% for Cmin. The latter parameter was not influenced to a clinically relevant extent by sex, age, or weight. The Cmin was well correlated with AUC (r2 = 0.81). Everolimus Cmin was significantly related to freedom from rejection (p = 0.02) with 3 ng/ml being an informative lower threshold for efficacy. Thrombocytopenia, defined as <75 x 10(9)/liter, was related significantly to Cmin (p = 0.03); however, the incidence in this study was too low to establish an upper end for the therapeutic range. Lower doses of cyclosporine (by 15% to 19%) were used in patients treated with everolimus to achieve cyclosporine Cmins and AUCs similar to those in patients treated with azathioprine. Everolimus exposure was dose proportional and stable during the first 6 months after transplantation. Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability was high but not influenced by common demographic covariates. We observed a significantly increased risk of acute rejection at everolimus trough levels <3 ng/ml, which constitutes the lower therapeutic concentration limit when everolimus is used with conventionally dosed cyclosporine. Everolimus-related adverse events were manageable up to the highest troughs (22 ng/ml) observed in this population. We could not derive a precise upper therapeutic concentration limit from these data.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed2004

Clinical pharmacokinetics of everolimus.

Everolimus is an immunosuppressive macrolide bearing a stable 2-hydroxyethyl chain substitution at position 40 on the sirolimus (rapamycin) structure. Everolimus, which has greater polarity than sirolimus, was developed in an attempt to improve the pharmacokinetic characteristics of sirolimus, particularly to increase its oral bioavailability. Everolimus has a mechanism of action similar to that of sirolimus. It blocks growth-driven transduction signals in the T-cell response to alloantigen and thus acts at a later stage than the calcineurin inhibitors ciclosporin and tacrolimus. Everolimus and ciclosporin show synergism in immunosuppression both in vitro and in vivo and therefore the drugs are intended to be given in combination after solid organ transplantation. The synergistic effect allows a dosage reduction that decreases adverse effects. For the quantification of the pharmacokinetics of everolimus, nine different assays using high performance liquid chromatography coupled to an electrospray mass spectrometer, and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, have been developed. Oral everolimus is absorbed rapidly, and reaches peak concentration after 1.3-1.8 hours. Steady state is reached within 7 days, and steady-state peak and trough concentrations, and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), are proportional to dosage. In adults, everolimus pharmacokinetic characteristics do not differ according to age, weight or sex, but bodyweight-adjusted dosages are necessary in children. The interindividual pharmacokinetic variability of everolimus can be explained by different activities of the drug efflux pump P-glycoprotein and of metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, 3A5 and 2C8. The critical role of the CYP3A4 system for everolimus biotransformation leads to drug-drug interactions with other drugs metabolised by this cytochrome system. In patients with hepatic impairment, the apparent clearance of everolimus is significantly lower than in healthy volunteers, and therefore the dosage of everolimus should be reduced by half in these patients. The advantage of everolimus seems to be its lower nephrotoxicity in comparison with the standard immunosuppressants ciclosporin and tacrolimus. Observed adverse effects with everolimus include hypertriglyceridaemia, hypercholesterolaemia, opportunistic infections, thrombocytopenia and leucocytopenia. Because of the variable oral bioavailability and narrow therapeutic index of everolimus, blood concentration monitoring seems to be important. The excellent correlation between steady-state trough concentration and AUC makes the former a simple and reliable index for monitoring everolimus exposure. The target trough concentration of everolimus should range between 3 and 15 microg/L in combination therapy with ciclosporin (trough concentration 100-300 microg/L) and prednisone.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Differential influence of two cyclosporine formulations on everolimus pharmacokinetics: a clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction.

Everolimus is an immunosuppressant intended for use with cyclosporine in acute-rejection prophylaxis following organ transplantation. The possibility of a drug interaction of cyclosporine on everolimus was assessed. In this randomized, two-period, crossover study, 24 healthy subjects received a single oral dose of 2 mg everolimus alone and with one of two cyclosporine formulations: either 175 mg Neoral or 300 mg Sandimmune. The single doses of Neoral and Sandimmune were chosen to yield similar average areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Treatments were separated by a 14-day washout period. Cyclosporine AUCs were similar for both formulations (p = 0.53), whereas the peak concentration (Cmax) was significantly higher for Neoral (p = 0.02). Simultaneous administration of Neoral with everolimus increased everolimus Cmax and AUC by 82% and 168%, respectively (p = 0.0001). Coadministration of Sandimmune with everolimus did not affect everolimus Cmax (p = 0.59) but increased everolimus AUC by 74% on average (p = 0.0001). Everolimus elimination half-lives were unchanged in the presence of both cyclosporine formulations. The everolimus AUC increase with Neoral coadministration was significantly greater than the AUC increase with Sandimmune (p = 0.008). However, there was no apparent association between cyclosporine Cmax and the change in everolimus AUC with cyclosporine coadministration. If Neoral or Sandimmune is removed from an everolimus-cyclosporine immunosuppressive regimen, a two- to three-fold decrease in everolimus exposure is expected. Therapeutic monitoring of everolimus concentrations would be helpful after the removal of cyclosporine to individually titrate everolimus exposure.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Economic evaluation of everolimus vs. azathioprine at one year after de novo heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus decreases acute rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. We compared within-trial costs and resource use over 1 yr of follow-up in de novo heart transplant patients randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg/d (n = 209), everolimus 3.0 mg/d (n = 211), or azathioprine (n = 214). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Resource use data were collected prospectively for 634 patients from 14 countries. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to test for differences in mean costs and to estimate confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Everolimus patients had lower incidence of efficacy failure compared with azathioprine patients (41.6%, everolimus 1.5 mg; 32.2%, everolimus 3.0 mg; 52.8%, azathioprine). Compared with patients receiving azathioprine, everolimus patients spent more days in the hospital [36.3 d for everolimus 1.5 mg/d (p = 0.21); 38.4 d for everolimus 3.0 mg/d (p = 0.01); 32.2 d for azathioprine]. Mean total costs, excluding the study medications, were not significantly different among treatment groups ($72 065 for everolimus 1.5 mg; $72 631 for everolimus 3.0 mg; $70 815 for azathioprine). CONCLUSIONS: Over 1 yr of follow-up after heart transplantation, everolimus did not significantly increase treatment costs, excluding the costs of the study medications, while reducing efficacy failure. Longer follow-up and the cost of everolimus are required to fully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs. azathioprine in post-transplant maintenance.

Azathioprine↗
PubMed2002

Review of the proliferation inhibitor everolimus.

Everolimus (Certican) is being developed for prevention of acute and chronic rejection of solid organ transplants. A novel proliferation inhibitor, everolimus synergies with cyclosporine to prevent and reverse acute rejection in preclinical models of kidney, heart or lung transplantation. The manifestations of chronic rejection that may contribute to graft loss are also inhibited by everolimus in preclinical models. Although everolimus is metabolised by the cytochrome P450 CYP3A isoenzyme, coadministration with cyclosporine does not alter the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine, but cyclosporine coadministration increases exposure to everolimus. Everolimus interacts with inhibitors and inducers of this system; its clearance is reduced in patients with hepatic impairment. In an immunosuppressive regimen with cyclosporine microemulsion formulation and corticosteroids, transplant recipients treated with everolimus show low rates of acute rejection and, in one heart and one renal trial, lower rates of cytomegalovirus infection. Acute rejection rates are lower than those seen with azathioprine in cardiac transplant recipients and similar to those seen with mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Low rates of acute rejection are maintained when everolimus is given as part of a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen with low-dose cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients, with the added benefit of better renal function compared with full-dose cyclosporine. Use of C(2) monitoring to optimise cyclosporine exposure and enhance efficacy and safety of everolimus is planned in future studies. Hypertriglyceridaemia and hypercholesterolaemia have been associated with everolimus, but these effects are not dose-limiting. There is no clear upper therapeutic limit of everolimus. However, thrombocytopenia occurs at a rate of 17% at everolimus trough serum concentrations above 7.8 ng/ml in renal transplant recipients. There are limited safety data available in patients with trough concentrations > 12 ng/ml. Studies suggest everolimus targets primary causes of chronic rejection by reducing acute rejection, allowing for cyclosporine dose reduction (which may lead to improved renal function relative to full-dose cyclosporine) and by reducing cytomegalovirus infection and inhibiting vascular remodelling.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Longitudinal assessment of everolimus in de novo renal transplant recipients over the first post-transplant year: pharmacokinetics, exposure-response relationships, and influence on cyclosporine.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize the steady-state pharmacokinetics of everolimus and cyclosporine (INN, ciclosporin) when coadministered in de novo kidney allograft recipients during the first year after transplantation. METHOD: This study was a multicenter randomized double-blind study of 101 patients who were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive everolimus tablets at doses of 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg twice daily with cyclosporine and prednisone. Blood sampling for the pharmacokinetics of everolimus and cyclosporine was performed on day 1, on weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and on months 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Everolimus dose-proportionality and stability over time were assessed in the context of linear regression and ANOVA models. Everolimus exposure-response relationships between area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) and changes in platelets, leukocytes, and lipids were explored with the median-effect model. Potential differences in cyclosporine dosing and pharmacokinetics at different levels of everolimus exposure were assessed in the context of ANOVA. RESULTS: Everolimus steady state was reached on or before day 7, with a median 3-fold accumulation of drug exposure compared with that after the first postoperative dose. Both steady-state maximum concentration and AUC were dose proportional over the full dose range when assessed on day 1, as well as for the full duration of the study at steady state. There was evidence for longitudinal stability in AUC of everolimus during the course of the study. The interindividual pharmacokinetic variability for AUC was 85.4% and intraindividual, interoccasion variability was 40.8%. Age (range, 17-69 years), weight (range, 49-106 kg), and sex (65 men and 36 women) were not significant contributors to variability. There was an increasing incidence of transient thrombocytopenia (< or =100 x 10(9)/L) with increasing everolimus AUC (P = .03). Cyclosporine doses, trough concentrations, and AUC exhibited similar temporal patterns during the course of the study regardless of the co-administered everolimus dose level (P = .13, .82, and .76, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus exhibited dose-proportional, stable exposure during the first post-transplant year. For a 4-fold range of everolimus doses there were no differential effects on cyclosporine dosing or pharmacokinetics.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of everolimus in de novo liver transplant recipients: 12- and 36-month results.

Everolimus is a macrolide immunosuppressive agent with known consistent absorption. In this double-blind study, we examined the safety and tolerability of everolimus vs. placebo in de novo liver transplant recipients. One hundred and nineteen liver allograft recipients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: everolimus 0.5 mg bid, everolimus 1.0 mg bid, everolimus 2 mg bid, or placebo. Patients received oral cyclosporine to achieve a target trough level of 150-400 ng/mL in combination with prednisone. Primary and secondary endpoints of safety, tolerability, and efficacy were determined at 12 months, and patients were followed through 36 months. There was a trend toward fewer treated acute rejections in the everolimus group than in the placebo group: everolimus 0.5 mg: 39.3%; everolimus 1.0 mg: 30.0%; everolimus 2 mg: 29.0%; placebo: 40.0% (P = not significant). Adverse events were higher in everolimus-treated patients especially at the 4-mg/day dose, but there was no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia or leukopenia between all groups and renal function as determined by serum creatinine, and creatinine clearance remained stable to 36 months in everolimus-treated patients. Mean cholesterol and triglycerides increased from baseline in all treatment groups, and maximum levels were seen at 6 months. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that everolimus in combination with oral cyclosporine had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, paving the way for additional studies in this transplant indication.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Optimal dosing and duration of oral everolimus to inhibit in-stent neointimal growth in rabbit iliac arteries.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is an orally active derivative of sirolimus. Oral administration of rapamycin is efficacious in the reduction of neointima formation and clinical restenosis; however, its optimal dose and duration have not been determined. METHODS: New Zealand White rabbits were divided into three groups. The first (low-dose) group received 1.5 mg/kg everolimus 1 day before stenting, followed by 0.75 mg/kg/day everolimus for 28 days. The second (high-dose) group received 6 mg/kg everolimus 1 day before, on the day of, and on the day after stenting, followed by 2 mg/kg/day for 4 days. The third (placebo) group received a matching volume of vehicle similar to that of Group 2. Twenty-eight days after stenting, animals were euthanized and morphometry was performed. RESULTS: In the high-dose group, circulating everolimus levels corresponded with administrated dose levels; by Day 12, no circulating everolimus could be detected. In the low-dose everolimus group, levels remained constant up to 28 days. When compared with placebo, low-dose everolimus was associated with a significant reduction in medial thickness (32%), neointimal area (60%), and percent stent stenosis (33%); however, high-dose everolimus had no significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, oral everolimus suppresses in-stent neointimal growth in rabbit iliac arteries. Four weeks of low-dose everolimus is more effective than 7 days of high-dose everolimus.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Long-term cardiovascular risk in transplantation--insights from the use of everolimus in heart transplantation.

Everolimus is a potent immunosuppressive agent that has anti-proliferative activity. The benefits of everolimus vs azathioprine in de novo heart transplant recipients were assessed in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients (n = 634) were randomized to receive everolimus (1.5 mg/day or 3.0 mg/day) or azathioprine; all patients received steroids and full-dose ciclosporin (CsA). The primary endpoint was the incidence of efficacy failure [biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or loss to follow-up]. The incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) was assessed by intravascular ultrasound. The incidence and hospitalization costs of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed after 4 years. The incidence of efficacy failure was significantly reduced with everolimus compared with azathioprine at 12, 24 and 48 months (P < 0.05), largely because of a lower incidence of BPAR. An increase in serum creatinine levels was seen with everolimus compared with azathioprine, likely attributed to CsA nephrotoxicity. There was a significantly larger increase in vascular intimal thickness with azathioprine than with everolimus (P <or= 0.01), which was accompanied by a significantly lower incidence of CAV in the everolimus groups. After 4 years, the incidence of MACE was higher with azathioprine than with either dose of everolimus. MACE-related treatment costs were estimated at 431,428 dollars for azathioprine, 136,664 dollars for everolimus 1.5 mg/day (68% saving) and 191,957 dollars for everolimus 3.0 mg/day (56% saving). Everolimus is significantly more effective than azathioprine in preventing efficacy failure in de novo heart transplant recipients and is also associated with reduced incidence and severity of CAV and MACE at 4 years post-transplant. The reduced 4-year incidence of MACE is likely to lead to substantially reduced hospitalization costs. Since cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are important factors in the long-term survival of renal transplant recipients, applying lessons from the use of everolimus in heart transplantation may further improve the understanding of managing cardiovascular risk in renal transplantation.

Azathioprine↗
PubMed2005

Effect of multiple-dose erythromycin on everolimus pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the influence of the CYP3A inhibitor erythromycin on the pharmacokinetics of everolimus, a CYP3A substrate. METHODS: This was a two-period, single-sequence, crossover study in 16 healthy subjects. In period 1, subjects received the reference treatment of a single 2-mg dose of everolimus. In period 2, they received the test treatment of erythromycin 500 mg three times daily for a total of 9 days and a single 2-mg dose of everolimus coadministered on the fifth day of erythromycin therapy. The test/reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were derived for everolimus C (max) and AUC. RESULTS: During erythromycin coadministration, everolimus C (max) increased 2.0-fold (90% CI, 1.8-2.3) from 20+/-5 ng/ml to 40+/-10 ng/ml. Everolimus AUC increased 4.4-fold (90% CI, 3.5-5.4) from 116+/-37 ng h/ml to 524+/-225 ng h/ml. Everolimus half-life was prolonged by 39% from 32+/-6 h to 44+/-6 h. Erythromycin predose concentrations were not changed after single-dose administration of everolimus. CONCLUSION: Multiple-dose erythromycin increased single-dose everolimus blood levels by an average 4.4-fold (range, 2.0-12.6). During erythromycin treatment, a compensatory everolimus dose reduction should be made guided by everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Antiproliferative and overadditive effects of everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in pancreas and lung cancer cells in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus inhibits the growth of several tumor cell lines in vitro as well as tumor growth in a rat model. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) inhibits growth of a Walker sarcoma in a rat model in vivo. Herein we tested the in vitro antiproliferative capacity of everolimus and MMF on a pancreatic tumor cell line Panc-1 and on a small cell lung cancer cell line ScLc. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cells were cultured under standardized conditions. Everolimus was added in increasing doses from 0.005 to 500 microg/mL; MMF was used from 0.05 to 5000 microg/mL. For co-incubation experiments, we combined everolimus (0.005 microg/mL and 0.05 microg/mL) with five concentrations of MMF; and MMF (0.5 microg/mL and 5 microg/mL) with five concentrations of everolimus. The antiproliferative capacity was assessed by a BrdU incorporation assay. RESULTS: Everolimus and MMF inhibited BrdU incorporation into Panc-1 and ScLc in a dose-dependent fashion. A 50% inhibition was seen in Panc-1 only at 50 microg/mL everolimus, but in ScLc at 5 microg/mL everolimus. MMF was clearly more potent in Panc-1: 50% inhibition was observed at 5 microg/L. In ScLc, 40% inhibition of BrdU incorporation was seen only at 50 microg/L MMF. In co-incubation, an effective combination for both Panc-1 and ScLc was 5 microg/mL MMF with 0.005 microg/mL everolimus resulting in 50% inhibition of BrdU incorporation (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus and MMF showed dose-dependent antiproliferative effects in tumor cell lines in vitro both alone and in combination. The combined use of everolimus and MMF showed supra-additive effects at concentrations used for therapeutic immunosuppression in patients.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Clinical experience with everolimus (Certican): optimizing dose and tolerability.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (Certican), a novel proliferation signal inhibitor, allows calcineurin inhibitor dose reduction in transplant patients, minimizing risk of nephrotoxicity without loss of immunosuppressive efficacy. As a result of its mode of action, this class of agent (i.e., everolimus and sirolimus) is associated with certain adverse events (e.g., lymphocele, arthralgia, edema and hyperlipidemia). METHODS: Three case studies from within an everolimus Phase III trial (A2306) are presented with the aim of illustrating how treatment-related adverse events can be managed. RESULTS: The combination of everolimus with reduced-exposure cyclosporine was efficacious in these patients. One experienced mild acute rejection that was managed with steroid boluses. All have acceptable graft function during follow-up to date. Moderate lymphocele either resolved spontaneously or was easily managed by povidine-iodine instillations. One patient developed serious early lymphocele that, unusually, required surgical intervention. Everolimus dose reduction or withdrawal was not necessary to effectively manage lymphocele of any severity. A case of bilateral multiple arthralgia was effectively managed with everolimus dose reduction, but still maintained everolimus trough blood levels at approximately 3 ng/ml. Eyelid and ankle edemas were also easily managed with low dose furosemide, preferably coupled with cyclosporine and everolimus dose reduction. Hyperlipidemia responded to statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus-related adverse events can be effectively managed either with other treatments or, where necessary, by everolimus dose reduction, without loss of efficacy. Discontinuing everolimus therapy is generally not necessary.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: This 36-month, randomized, parallel-group study compared safety and efficacy of two doses of everolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in de novo renal-transplant recipients. METHODS: Renal-allograft recipients received 1.5 mg/day or 3 mg/day of everolimus or 2 g/day of MMF, plus full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) and corticosteroids after randomization. For at least their first year, patients received study medication according to a double-blinded, double-dummy design. Concerns over nephrotoxicity led to a protocol amendment to an open-label design with reduced CsA troughs. RESULTS: Incidences of primary efficacy failure at 36 months (biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up) were everolimus 1.5 mg/day, 33.7% (65/193); everolimus 3 mg/day, 34.0% (66/194); and MMF, 31.1% (61/196) (P=0.810). Antibody-treated acute rejection at 36 months was significantly lower with everolimus 1.5 mg (9.8%) than MMF (18.4%, P=0.014). Discontinuation for adverse events was more frequent with everolimus and hemolytic uremic syndrome, lymphoproliferative disease, and proteinuria, and higher serum creatinine occurred at increased frequency relative to the MMF arm. Creatinine levels in the everolimus arms were stable in follow-up: the mean rise in creatinine over the first 6 months of the open-label phase was 3 micromol/L or greater with everolimus and 7 micromol/L with MMF. However, serum creatinine levels were lower in the MMF group throughout. Death and graft loss were higher in the everolimus arms (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: As part of triple-drug immunosuppression, everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg/day) was as efficacious as MMF, although the side-effect profile featured increased adverse events. Nephrotoxicity/calcineurin-inhibitor-related adverse events will require judicious lowering of CsA exposure with monitoring of everolimus troughs.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Oral everolimus inhibits in-stent neointimal growth.

BACKGROUND: Rapamycin (sirolimus)-eluting stents are associated with reduced restenosis rates in animal studies and initial human trials. The present study evaluated whether orally administered everolimus (a macrolide of the same family as sirolimus) inhibits in-stent neointimal growth in rabbit iliac arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg/kg per day starting 3 days before stenting and reduced to 1 mg/kg per day from days 14 to 28 (group 1), everolimus 1.5 mg/kg given 1 day before stenting followed by 0.75 mg/kg per day for 28 days (group 2), or matching placebo for each group. Drugs were administered by oral gavage. Stents were deployed in both iliac arteries, and arteries were harvested 28 days after stenting. Group 1 everolimus-treated rabbits experienced weight loss and anorexia, which resolved after the everolimus dose was lowered on day 14. Group 2 animals were healthy for the duration of everolimus dosing. Both everolimus treatment groups significantly reduced in-stent neointimal growth (46% reduction and 42% reduction in intimal thickness in groups 1 and 2, respectively). In group 2 everolimus-treated animals, the neointima was healed or healing, characterized by stent struts covered by a thin neointima, overlying endothelial cells, and only small foci of fibrin. Scanning electron microscopy showed >80% stent surface endothelialization in group 2 everolimus-treated rabbits. CONCLUSIONS: Oral everolimus suppresses in-stent neointimal growth in the rabbit iliac artery. At a dose of 1.5 mg/kg given 1 day before stenting followed by 0.75 mg/kg per day for 28 days, everolimus was well tolerated and was associated with significant neointimal healing.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Everolimus: a proliferation signal inhibitor targeting primary causes of allograft dysfunction.

Allograft dysfunction remains a major problem for long-term graft survival after kidney and heart transplantation. Current immunosuppressive regimens do not completely address the causes of allograft dysfunction which include acute rejection episodes, complications of immunodeficiency (for example, cytomegalovirus infection), nephrotoxicity from calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) and vascular remodeling and vasculopathy. Everolimus is a potent immunosuppressor that inhibits growth factor-stimulated proliferation of hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic cells, including vascular smooth muscle. Everolimus is indicated for the prophylaxis of acute rejection in kidney and heart transplant patients in a combined regimen with cyclosporine microemulsion and corticosteroids. Everolimus is formulated as both a tablet and a tablet for oral solution. It is rapidly absorbed and displays dose-proportional, stable pharmacokinetics. Everolimus has equivalent efficacy to mycophenolate mofetil in reducing the incidence of acute rejection after renal transplantation and superior efficacy to azathioprine after heart transplantation. Combination of everolimus with cyclosporine allows dose-reduction of cyclosporine while maintaining efficacy due to the synergistic immunosuppressive effects of the combination. Everolimus reduces intimal thickening of blood vessels to the graft and the incidence of allograft vasculopathy in heart transplantation. In both kidney and heart transplantation, the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection was lower in everolimus-treated patients compared with patients receiving the control treatment. Everolimus-related adverse events include elevated cholesterol and triglycerides, which respond to treatment, and decreased platelet count, which is transient. Nephrotoxicity may result from the combination of everolimus with full-dose cyclosporine but is mitigated by reducing the dose of cyclosporine. Everolimus is initiated at 0.75 mg b.i.d. with dose adjustments guided by therapeutic drug monitoring of predose blood levels. In clinical development trials, everolimus has demonstrated the ability to reduce the incidence of acute rejection episodes, cytomegalovirus infection and cardiac vasculopathy, thus addressing the primary causes of allograft dysfunction.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Everolimus for the prevention of allograft rejection and vasculopathy in cardiac-transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus, a novel proliferation inhibitor and immunosuppressive agent, may suppress cardiac-allograft vasculopathy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing everolimus with azathioprine in recipients of a first heart transplant. METHODS: A total of 634 patients were randomly assigned to receive 1.5 mg of everolimus per day (209 patients), 3.0 mg of everolimus per day (211 patients), or 1.0 to 3.0 mg of azathioprine per kilogram of body weight per day (214 patients), in combination with cyclosporine, corticosteroids, and statins. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death, graft loss or retransplantation, loss to follow-up, biopsy-proved acute rejection of grade 3A, or rejection with hemodynamic compromise. RESULTS: At six months, the percentage of patients who had reached the primary efficacy end point was significantly smaller in the group given 3.0 mg of everolimus (27.0 percent, P<0.001) and the group given 1.5 mg of everolimus (36.4 percent, P=0.03) than in the azathioprine group (46.7 percent). Intravascular ultrasonography showed that the average increase in maximal intimal thickness 12 months after transplantation was significantly smaller in the two everolimus groups than in the azathioprine group. The incidence of vasculopathy was also significantly lower in the 1.5-mg group (35.7 percent, P=0.045) and the 3.0-mg group (30.4 percent, P=0.01) than in the azathioprine group (52.8 percent). The rates of cytomegalovirus infection were significantly lower in the 1.5-mg group (7.7 percent, P<0.001) and the 3.0-mg group (7.6 percent, P<0.001) than in the azathioprine group (21.5 percent). Rates of bacterial infection were significantly higher in the 3.0-mg group than in the azathioprine group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly higher in the two everolimus groups than in the azathioprine group. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus was more efficacious than azathioprine in reducing the severity and incidence of cardiac-allograft vasculopathy, suggesting that everolimus therapy may alleviate this serious problem.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

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.

Area Under Curve↗
PubMed2005

Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients.

Everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/day was compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day in a randomized, multicenter 36-month trial in de novo renal allograft recipients (n = 588) receiving cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA) and corticosteroids. The study was double-blind until all patients had completed 12 months, then open-label. By 36 months, graft loss occurred in 7.2, 16.7 and 10.7% of patients in the everolimus 1.5, 3 mg/day, and MMF groups, respectively (p = 0.0048 for everolimus 1.5 mg/day vs. 3 mg/day); efficacy failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or lost to follow-up) occurred in 33.0, 38.9 and 37.2% of patients (p = 0.455 overall), respectively. Mortality and incidence of BPAR were comparable in all groups. Creatinine values were higher in everolimus groups, requiring a protocol amendment that recommended lower CsA exposure. Diarrhea, lymphocele, peripheral edema and hyperlipidemia were more common among everolimus-treated patients, whereas viral infections, particularly cytomegalovirus infection, increased in the MMF group. Overall safety and tolerability were better with MMF and everolimus 1.5 mg/day than with everolimus 3 mg/day. In conclusion, at 36 months, an immunosuppressive regimen containing everolimus 1.5 mg/day had equivalent patient, and graft survival and rejection rates compared with MMF in de novo renal transplant recipients, whereas everolimus 3 mg/day had inferior graft survival. Renal dysfunction in everolimus cohorts necessitates close monitoring.

Adolescent↗