Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment at high-volume centers confers lower mortality at 6-month follow-up: results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry

BACKGROUND: Studies continue to identify percutaneous coronary intervention procedural volume both at the institutional level and at the operator level as being strongly correlated with outcome. High-volume centers have been defined as those that perform >400 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures per year. The relationship between drug-eluting stent procedural volume and outcome is unknown. We investigated this relationship in the German Cypher Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis included 8201 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents between April 2002 and September 2005 in 51 centers. Centers that recruited >400 sirolimus-eluting stent patients in this time period were considered high-volume centers; those with 150 to 400 patients were considered intermediate-volume centers; and those with <150 patients were designated as low-volume centers. The primary end point was all death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 6 months. This end point occurred in 11.3%, 12.1%, and 9.0% of patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume center groups, respectively (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups in the rate of target-vessel revascularization (P=0.2) or cerebrovascular accidents (P=0.5). The difference in death/myocardial infarction remained significant after adjustment for baseline factors (odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.59, P<0.001 for low-volume centers; odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.21, P<0.001 for intermediate-volume centers). Patient and lesion selection, procedural features, and postprocedural medications differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of sirolimus-eluting stent procedures performed on an institutional level was inversely related to death and myocardial infarction but not to target-vessel revascularization at 6-month follow-up. Safety issues are better considered in high-volume centers. These findings have important public health policy implications.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: The Bern–Rotterdam diabetes cohort study

BACKGROUND Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n=804), SES (n=612) and PES (n=547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE. CONCLUSION In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts

Aims: Newer-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit is maintained among patients with saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease remains controversial. Methods and results: We assessed cumulative incidence rates (CIR) per 100 patient years after inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare clinical outcomes. The pre-specified primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Out of 12,339 consecutively treated patients, 288 patients (5.7%) underwent PCI of at least one SVG lesion with EES (n=127), SES (n=103) or PES (n=58). Up to four years, CIR of the primary endpoint were 58.7 for EES, 45.2 for SES and 45.6 for PES with similar adjusted risks between groups (EES vs. SES; HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.60, EES vs. PES; HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.60-1.91). Adjusted risks showed no significant differences between stent types for cardiac death, MI and TVR. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI for SVG lesions, newer-generation EES have similar safety and efficacy to early-generation SES and PES during long-term follow-up to four years.

One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study

OBJECTIVE to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up. BACKGROUND Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem. METHODS All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima. RESULTS A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience. CONCLUSION The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Ten year clinical follow-up after Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the "very" long-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), target-vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. We present the first study to provide a 10-year clinical follow-up in an unselected patient population who underwent SES implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We ran a systematic 10-year clinical follow-up in a series of 200 consecutive patients treated with unrestricted SES implantation between April 2002 and April 2003 in two Swiss hospitals. Outcomes and follow-up were obtained in all 200 patients. The cumulative 10-year MACE rate was 47% with all-cause death of 20%, cardiac death of 9%, myocardial infarction of 7%, TLR and target-vessel revascularization of 8% and 11% respectively. Academic Research Consortium-defined "definite and probable" stent thrombosis-rate was 2.5%. TLR risk was maximal between 3 to 6 years. New lesion revascularization increased throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: Incidence of TLR was maximal 3 to 6 years after SES implantation and decreased thereafter. MACE and non-TLR revascularization rates steadily increased during the complete follow-up underlining the progression of coronary artery disease.

Comparison of a Novel Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Results of the Randomized BIOFLOW-II Trial.

BACKGROUND Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing. We assessed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) compared with the durable polymer Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in terms of the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 452 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES (298 patients, 332 lesions) or X-EES (154 patients, 173 lesions) in a multicenter, noninferiority trial. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9 months. O-SES was noninferior to X-EES for the primary end point (0.10±0.32 versus 0.11±0.29 mm; difference=0.00063 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.07; Pnoninferiority<0.0001). Clinical outcome showed similar rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year (O-SES 6.5% versus X-EES 8.0%; hazard ratio=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.68; log-rank test: P=0.58) without cases of stent thrombosis. A subgroup of patients (n=55) underwent serial optical coherence tomography at 9 months, which demonstrated similar neointimal thickness among lesions allocated to O-SES and X-EES (0.10±0.04 mm versus 0.11±0.04 mm; -0.01 [-0.04, -0.01]; P=0.37). Another subgroup of patients (n=56) underwent serial intravascular ultrasound at baseline and 9 months indicating a potential difference in neointimal area at follow-up (O-SES, 0.16±0.33 mm(2) versus X-EES, 0.43±0.56 mm(2); P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Compared with durable polymer X-EES, novel biodegradable polymer-based O-SES was found noninferior for the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. Clinical event rates were comparable without cases of stent thrombosis throughout 1 year of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01356888.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

CEDIA (R) sirolimus assay compared with HPLC-MS/MS and HPLC-UV in transplant recipient specimens

The role of the therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory in support of immunosuppressant drug therapy is well established, and the introduction of sirolimus (SRL) is a new direction in this field. The lack of an immunoassay for several years has restricted the availability of SRL assay services. The recent availability of a CEDIA (R) SRL assay has the potential to improve this situation. The present communication has compared the CEDIA (R) SRL method with 2 established chromatographic methods, HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS/MS. The CEDIA (R) method, run on a Hitachi 917 analyzer, showed acceptable validation criteria with within-assay precision of 9.1% and 3.3%, and bias of 17.1% and 5.8%, at SRL concentrations of 5.0 mu g/L and 20 mu g/L, respectively. The corresponding between-run precision values were 11.5% and 3.3% and bias of 7.1% and 2.9% at 5.0 mu g/L and 20 mu g/L, respectively, The lower limit of quantification was found to be 3.0 mu g/L. A series of 96 EDTA whole-blood samples predominantly from renal transplant recipients were assayed by the 3 methods for comparison. It was found that the CEDIA (R) method showed a Deming regression line of CEDIA = 1.20 X HPLC-MS/MS - 0.07 (r = 0.934, SEE = 1.47), with a mean bias of 20.4%. Serial blood samples from 8 patients included in this evaluation showed that the CEDIA (R) method reflected the clinical fluctuations in the chromatographic methods, albeit with the variable bias noted. The CEDIA (R) method on the H917 analyzer is therefore a useful adjunct to SRL dosage individualization in renal transplant recipients.

Relationships between sirolimus dosing, concentration and outcomes in renal transplant recipients

Aim To explore relationships between sirolimus dosing, concentration and clinical outcomes. Methods Data were collected from 25 kidney transplant recipients (14 M/11 F), median 278 days after transplantation. Outcomes of interest were white blood cell (WBC) count, platelet (PLT) count, and haematocrit (HCT). A naive pooled data analysis was performed with outcomes dichotomized (Mann-Whitney U-tests). Results Several patients experienced at least one episode when WBC (n = 9), PLT (n = 12), or HCT (n = 21) fell below the lower limits of the normal range. WBC and HCT were significantly lower (P < 0.05) when sirolimus dose was greater than 10 mg day(-1), and sirolimus concentration greater than 12 mu g l(-1). No relationship was shown for PLT and dichotomized sirolimus dose or concentration. Conclusions Given this relationship between sirolimus concentration and effect, linked population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling using data from more renal transplant recipients should now be used to quantify the time course of these relationships to optimize dosing and minimize risk of these adverse outcomes.