Claudia Sommerer

Bio: Claudia Sommerer is an academic researcher from University Hospital Heidelberg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transplantation & Kidney transplantation. The author has an hindex of 36, co-authored 163 publications receiving 4604 citations. Previous affiliations of Claudia Sommerer include Charité & Heidelberg University.

Everolimus in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a slowly progressive hereditary disorder that usually leads to end-stage renal disease. Although the underlying gene mutations were identified several years ago, efficacious therapy to curtail cyst growth and prevent renal failure is not available. Experimental and observational studies suggest that the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway plays a critical role in cyst growth. METHODS In this 2-year, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 433 patients with ADPKD to receive either placebo or the mTOR inhibitor everolimus. The primary outcome was the change in total kidney volume, as measured on magnetic resonance imaging, at 12 and 24 months. RESULTS Total kidney volume increased between baseline and 1 year by 102 ml in the everolimus group, versus 157 ml in the placebo group (P = 0.02) and between baseline and 2 years by 230 ml and 301 ml, respectively (P = 0.06). Cyst volume increased by 76 ml in the everolimus group and 98 ml in the placebo group after 1 year (P = 0.27) and by 181 ml and 215 ml, respectively, after 2 years (P = 0.28). Parenchymal volume increased by 26 ml in the everolimus group and 62 ml in the placebo group after 1 year (P = 0.003) and by 56 ml and 93 ml, respectively, after 2 years (P = 0.11). The mean decrement in the estimated glomerular filtration rate after 24 months was 8.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2 of body-surface area in the everolimus group versus 7.7 ml per minute in the placebo group (P = 0.15). Drug-specific adverse events were more common in the everolimus group; the rate of infection was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Within the 2-year study period, as compared with placebo, everolimus slowed the increase in total kidney volume of patients with ADPKD but did not slow the decline in progressive renal impairment. (EudraCT number, 2006-001485-16; ClinicalTrials .gov number, NCT00414440.)

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Tacrolimus-Personalized Therapy : Second Consensus Report

Abstract: Ten years ago, a consensus report on the optimization of tacrolimus was published in this journal. In 2017, the Immunosuppressive Drugs Scientific Committee of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicity (IATDMCT) decided to issue an updated consensus report considering the most relevant advances in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacogenetics (PG), pharmacodynamics, and immunologic biomarkers, with the aim to provide analytical and drug-exposure recommendations to assist TDM professionals and clinicians to individualize tacrolimus TDM and treatment. The consensus is based on in-depth literature searches regarding each topic that is addressed in this document. Thirty-seven international experts in the field of TDM of tacrolimus as well as its PG and biomarkers contributed to the drafting of sections most relevant for their expertise. Whenever applicable, the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations were graded according to a published grading guide. After iterated editing, the final version of the complete document was approved by all authors. For each category of solid organ and stem cell transplantation, the current state of PK monitoring is discussed and the specific targets of tacrolimus trough concentrations (predose sample C0) are presented for subgroups of patients along with the grading of these recommendations. In addition, tacrolimus area under the concentration-time curve determination is proposed as the best TDM option early after transplantation, at the time of immunosuppression minimization, for special populations, and specific clinical situations. For indications other than transplantation, the potentially effective tacrolimus concentrations in systemic treatment are discussed without formal grading. The importance of consistency, calibration, proficiency testing, and the requirement for standardization and need for traceability and reference materials is highlighted. The status for alternative approaches for tacrolimus TDM is presented including dried blood spots, volumetric absorptive microsampling, and the development of intracellular measurements of tacrolimus. The association between CYP3A5 genotype and tacrolimus dose requirement is consistent (Grading A I). So far, pharmacodynamic and immunologic biomarkers have not entered routine monitoring, but determination of residual nuclear factor of activated T cells-regulated gene expression supports the identification of renal transplant recipients at risk of rejection, infections, and malignancy (B II). In addition, monitoring intracellular T-cell IFN-g production can help to identify kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of acute rejection (B II) and select good candidates for immunosuppression minimization (B II). Although cell-free DNA seems a promising biomarker of acute donor injury and to assess the minimally effective C0 of tacrolimus, multicenter prospective interventional studies are required to better evaluate its clinical utility in solid organ transplantation. Population PK models including CYP3A5 and CYP3A4 genotypes will be considered to guide initial tacrolimus dosing. Future studies should investigate the clinical benefit of time-to-event models to better evaluate biomarkers as predictive of personal response, the risk of rejection, and graft outcome. The Expert Committee concludes that considerable advances in the different fields of tacrolimus monitoring have been achieved during this last decade. Continued efforts should focus on the opportunities to implement in clinical routine the combination of new standardized PK approaches with PG, and valid biomarkers to further personalize tacrolimus therapy and to improve long-term outcomes for treated patients.

Comparing Mycophenolate Mofetil Regimens for de Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: The Fixed-Dose Concentration-Controlled Trial

Abstract: BACKGROUND.: Fixed-dose mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) reduces the incidence of acute rejection after solid organ transplantation. The Fixed-Dose Concentration Controlled trial assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients receiving MMF after de novo renal transplant. METHODS.: Patients were randomized to a concentration-controlled (n=452; target exposure 45 mg hr/L) or a fixed-dose (n=449) MMF-containing regimen. The primary endpoint was treatment failure (a composite of biopsy-proven acute rejection [BPAR], graft loss, death, or MMF discontinuation) by 12 months posttransplantation. RESULTS.: Mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposures for both groups were similar at most time points and were below 30 mg hr/L in 37.3% of patients at day 3. There was no difference in the incidence of treatment failure (25.6% vs. 25.7%, P=0.81) or BPAR (14.9% vs. 15.5%, P>0.05) between the concentration-controlled and the fixed-dose groups, respectively. We did find a significant relationship between MPA-area under the concentration-time curve on day 3 and the incidence of BPAR in the first month (P=0.009) or in the first year posttransplantation (P=0.006). For later time points (day 10, month 1) there was no significant relationship between area under the concentration-time curve and BPAR (0.2572 and 0.5588, respectively). CONCLUSIONS.: There was no difference in the incidence of treatment failure between the concentration-controlled and the fixed-dose groups. The applied protocol of MMF dose adjustments based on target MPA exposure was not successful, partly because physicians seemed reluctant to implement substantial dose changes. Current initial MMF doses underexpose more than 35% of patients early after transplantation, increasing the risk for BPAR.

Everolimus with Reduced Calcineurin Inhibitor Exposure in Renal Transplantation

Abstract: Background Everolimus permits reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) exposure, but the efficacy and safety outcomes of this treatment after kidney transplant require confirmation.Methods In a multicenter noninferiority trial, we randomized 2037 de novo kidney transplant recipients to receive, in combination with induction therapy and corticosteroids, everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (everolimus arm) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (MPA arm). The primary end point was treated biopsy-proven acute rejection or eGFR<50 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at post-transplant month 12 using a 10% noninferiority margin.Results In the intent-to-treat population (everolimus n=1022, MPA n=1015), the primary end point incidence was 48.2% (493) with everolimus and 45.1% (457) with MPA (difference 3.2%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 7.6%). Similar between-treatment differences in incidence were observed in the subgroups of patients who received tacrolimus or cyclosporine. Treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death at post-transplant month 12 occurred in 14.9% and 12.5% of patients treated with everolimus and MPA, respectively (difference 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -1.7% to 6.4%). De novo donor-specific antibody incidence at 12 months and antibody-mediated rejection rate did not differ between arms. Cytomegalovirus (3.6% versus 13.3%) and BK virus infections (4.3% versus 8.0%) were less frequent in the everolimus arm than in the MPA arm. Overall, 23.0% and 11.9% of patients treated with everolimus and MPA, respectively, discontinued the study drug because of adverse events.Conclusions In kidney transplant recipients at mild-to-moderate immunologic risk, everolimus was noninferior to MPA for a binary composite end point assessing immunosuppressive efficacy and preservation of graft function.

The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients

Abstract: Institutional Affiliations Chair Costanzo MR: Midwest Heart Foundation, Lombard Illinois, USA Task Force 1 Dipchand A: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto Ontario, Canada; Starling R: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Anderson A: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Chan M: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA; Fedson S: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Fisher P: Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Gonzales-Stawinski G: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Martinelli L: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; McGiffin D: University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Parisi F: Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesu, Rome, Italy; Smith J: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Task Force 2 Taylor D: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Meiser B: University of Munich/Grosshaden, Munich, Germany; Baran D: Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey, USA; Carboni M: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Dengler T: University of Hidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Frigerio M: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; Kfoury A: Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USA; Kim D: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Kobashigawa J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Shullo M: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Stehlik J: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Teuteberg J: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Uber P: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Zuckermann A: University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Task Force 3 Hunt S: Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA; Burch M: Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK; Bhat G: Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, Illinois, USA; Canter C: St. Louis Children Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Chinnock R: Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA; Crespo-Leiro M: Hospital Universitario A Coruna, La Coruna, Spain; Delgado R: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas, USA; Dobbels F: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Grady K: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illlinois, USA; Kao W: University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, USA; Lamour J: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Parry G: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Patel J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Pini D: Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy; Pinney S: Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Towbin J: Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Wolfel G: University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA Independent Reviewers Delgado D: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Eisen H: Drexler University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Goldberg L: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Hosenpud J: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Johnson M: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Keogh A: St Vincent Hospital, Sidney, New South Wales, Australia; Lewis C: Papworth Hospital Cambridge, UK; O'Connell J: St. Joseph Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Ross H: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Russell S: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Vanhaecke J: University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

M2 microglia and macrophages drive oligodendrocyte differentiation during CNS remyelination

Abstract: In this study, the authors show that oligodendrocyte differentiation and remyelination after a CNS lesion coincides with a switch in microglial/macrophage polarization from a pro-inflammatory, M1, phenotype to an anti-inflammatory, M2, phenotype. This M2-dependant effect was in part mediated by secretion of the TGFβ family member, Activin-A.

Tolvaptan in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Abstract: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-year trial, we randomly assigned 1445 patients, 18 to 50 years of age, who had ADPKD with a total kidney volume of 750 ml or more and an estimated creatinine clearance of 60 ml per minute or more, in a 2:1 ratio to receive tolvaptan, a V 2 -receptor antagonist, at the highest of three twice-daily dose regimens that the patient found tolerable, or placebo. The primary outcome was the annual rate of change in the total kidney volume. Sequential secondary end points included a composite of time to clinical progression (defined as worsening kidney function, kidney pain, hypertension, and albuminuria) and rate of kidney-function decline. RESULTS Over a 3-year period, the increase in total kidney volume in the tolvaptan group was 2.8% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 3.1), versus 5.5% per year in the placebo group (95% CI, 5.1 to 6.0; P<0.001). The composite end point favored tolvaptan over placebo (44 vs. 50 events per 100 follow-up-years, P = 0.01), with lower rates of worsening kidney function (2 vs. 5 events per 100 person-years of followup, P<0.001) and kidney pain (5 vs. 7 events per 100 person-years of follow-up, P = 0.007). Tolvaptan was associated with a slower decline in kidney function (reciprocal of the serum creatinine level, −2.61 [mg per milliliter] −1 per year vs. −3.81 [mg per milliliter] −1 per year; P<0.001). There were fewer ADPKD-related adverse events in the tolvaptan group but more events related to aquaresis (excretion of electrolyte-free water) and hepatic adverse events unrelated to ADPKD, contributing to a higher discontinuation rate (23%, vs. 14% in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS Tolvaptan, as compared with placebo, slowed the increase in total kidney volume and the decline in kidney function over a 3-year period in patients with ADPKD but was associated with a higher discontinuation rate, owing to adverse events. (Funded by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization; TEMPO 3:4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428948.)

Management of Chronic Kidney Disease Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Mixing Acute and Chronic Illness

Abstract: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for developing critical illness and for admission to intensive care units (ICU). ‘Critically ill CKD patients' frequently develop an acute w