Kelli Harker

Bio: Kelli Harker is an academic researcher from University of Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transplantation & Tacrolimus. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 118 citations. Previous affiliations of Kelli Harker include UF Health Shands Hospital.

Safety and efficacy of pravastatin therapy for the prevention of hyperlipidemia in pediatric and adolescent cardiac transplant recipients

Abstract: Background Hyperlipidemia is common after cardiac transplantation and it is a risk factor for post-transplantation coronary artery disease. Immunosuppression with corticosteroids and cyclosporine has been associated with hyperlipidemia. Pravastatin, a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective and safe for cholesterol reduction in adult heart transplant recipients. To our knowledge the safety and efficacy of pravastatin therapy in pediatric and adolescent heart transplant populations have not been previously analyzed. Therefore, we evaluated lipid profiles, liver transaminases, rejection data, and possible side effects in pediatric and adolescent cardiac transplant recipients treated with pravastatin. Methods The study group consisted of 40 cardiac transplant recipients 10 to 21 years old (mean age 16.9 years). Twenty-two patients received pravastatin in addition to an immunosuppressive regimen of either cyclosporine or tacrolimus, azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. Serial determinations of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein, and triglycerides were available for all pravastatin-treated patients. Pre-treatment lipid values and hepatic transaminases were compared with those measured after therapy with pravastatin. Comparison of pravastatin-induced lipid reduction between groups treated with cyclosporine vs tacrolimus was also made. Results Patients receiving pravastatin experienced a mean 32 mg/dl decrease in TC ( p p Conclusion Pravastatin therapy is effective and safe when used in pediatric and adolescent cardiac transplant recipients. Although the pravastatin-induced reduction in TC and LDL was more pronounced in patients receiving cyclosporine, the reduction was not statistically different from that in the tacrolimus group. No evidence of hepatic dysfunction or rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with pravastatin was noted. Long-term studies are required to evaluate the effect of pravastatin therapy on the incidence of accelerated coronary atherosclerosis in this population.

Increased myocardial performance index correlates with biopsy-proven rejection in pediatric heart transplant recipients.

Abstract: Background To date, cardiac catheterization and endomyocardial biopsy have been considered the "gold standard" for rejection surveillance after heart transplantation. Factors such as patient size (i.e., infant transplantation), loss of vascular access after repeated catheterizations, and anesthesia requirements all present unique problems and risks related to pediatric rejection surveillance. Therefore, additional methods to monitor for rejection in a non-invasive, reliable and frequent manner have been sought. We studied the utility of echocardiographic measurement of the left ventricular myocardial performance index (LVMPI), a reproducible measure of combined systolic and diastolic performance, in pediatric heart transplant recipients as a method of identifying acute rejection. Methods Two-dimensional/Doppler echocardiographic studies ( n = 36) were performed on 21 cardiac transplant patients (ages 6.2 to 21.9 years) at the time of endomyocardial biopsy. The LVMPI, the sum of the isovolumic contraction time and isovolumic relaxation time divided by aortic ejection time, was determined at each study, as well as other echocardiographic measures of systolic and diastolic function. Patients were grouped by concurrent histologic rejection grade and the results compared between groups. Results Significant differences in LVMPI ( p n = 23) and those with moderate to severe rejection (Grade 3; n = 5), as well as between those with no rejection and those with focal moderate (Grade 2; n = 8) rejection ( p n = 7). No significant differences were noted between groups for left ventricular ejection fraction or shortening fraction, percent septal or posterior wall thickening, left ventricular mass index or mitral valve deceleration time. In addition, for those individual patients with multiple studies, the LVMPI consistently increased with higher rejection grades and decreased after therapy. Conclusions In this series, increased LVMPI correlated with biopsy-proven rejection, and frequent serial assessments using this technique may provide a relatively sensitive non-invasive means of rejection surveillance after pediatric cardiac transplantation. False positive results may be encountered, likely due to alterations in diastolic function that have been previously observed in transplant recipients.

Tacrolimus-based triple-drug immunosuppression minimizes serum lipid elevations in pediatric cardiac transplant recipients

Abstract: Background: Immunosuppression with corticosteroids and cyclosporine has been associated with hyperlipidemia, a risk factor for post-transplant coronary artery disease. The recent development of tacrolimus has created an alternative to cyclosporine-based triple drug immunotherapy. One potential benefit that has been reported in patients receiving tacrolimus is a minimization of elevation of both total and LDL cholesterol, compared to those increases observed in patients receiving cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. It is unclear in previous studies whether this beneficial effect is related to tacrolimus directly or to its corticosteroid sparing potential. To study this relationship, we compared lipid profiles from pediatric cardiac transplant recipients treated with corticosteroids, and either cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Methods The study group consisted of 23 patients (mean age = 12.3 years) with pre-transplant and serial post-transplant determinations of total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides. Patients were separated into 4 study groups, defined by immunosuppressive regimen (cyclosporine vs. tacrolimus) and prednisone dose (>0.10 mg/kg/day vs ≤0.10 mg/kg/day). Results Patients who received cyclosporine and higher doses of prednisone experienced a mean 74 mg/dl increase from baseline in total cholesterol ( p = .0001). None of the other 3 treatment groups demonstrated a statistically significant elevation. Similar trends were observed in LDL and triglyceride alterations between the 4 study groups. Interestingly, patients treated with tacrolimus and higher doses of prednisone demonstrated a significant rise in HDL from baseline ( p = .0001), although those who received cyclosporine and higher dose prednisone failed to exhibit this rise. Conclusion The minimal degree of lipid alteration seen in patients receiving tacrolimus and higher doses of prednisone indicates that this effect was not solely based upon the steroid-sparing properties of tacrolimus therapy. The data also suggests a possible synergistic effect between cyclosporine and higher doses of prednisone on hyperlipidemia. Therefore, in pediatric patients requiring higher corticosteroid doses late after transplantation, use of tacrolimus rather than cyclosporine may lead to more favorable lipid profiles and help minimize the risk of post-transplant coronary arteriopathy.

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.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tacrolimus in solid organ transplantation.

Abstract: The aim of this review is to analyse critically the recent literature on the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tacrolimus in solid organ transplant recipients. Dosage and target concentration recommendations for tacrolimus vary from centre to centre, and large pharmacokinetic variability makes it difficult to predict what concentration will be achieved with a particular dose or dosage change. Therapeutic ranges have not been based on statistical approaches. The majority of pharmacokinetic studies have involved intense blood sampling in small homogeneous groups in the immediate post-transplant period. Most have used nonspecific immunoassays and provide little information on pharmacokinetic variability. Demographic investigations seeking correlations between pharmacokinetic parameters and patient factors have generally looked at one covariate at a time and have involved small patient numbers. Factors reported to influence the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus include the patient group studied, hepatic dysfunction, hepatitis C status, time after transplantation, patient age, donor liver characteristics, recipient race, haematocrit and albumin concentrations, diurnal rhythm, food administration, corticosteroid dosage, diarrhoea and cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzyme and P-glycoprotein expression. Population analyses are adding to our understanding of the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, but such investigations are still in their infancy. A significant proportion of model variability remains unexplained. Population modelling and Bayesian forecasting may be improved if CYP isoenzymes and/or P-glycoprotein expression could be considered as covariates. Reports have been conflicting as to whether low tacrolimus trough concentrations are related to rejection. Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between high trough concentrations and toxicity, particularly nephrotoxicity. The best predictor of pharmacological effect may be drug concentrations in the transplanted organ itself. Researchers have started to question current reliance on trough measurement during therapeutic drug monitoring, with instances of toxicity and rejection occurring when trough concentrations are within 'acceptable' ranges. The correlation between blood concentration and drug exposure can be improved by use of non-trough timepoints. However, controversy exists as to whether this will provide any great benefit, given the added complexity in monitoring. Investigators are now attempting to quantify the pharmacological effects of tacrolimus on immune cells through assays that measure in vivo calcineurin inhibition and markers of immunosuppression such as cytokine concentration. To date, no studies have correlated pharmacodynamic marker assay results with immunosuppressive efficacy, as determined by allograft outcome, or investigated the relationship between calcineurin inhibition and drug adverse effects. Little is known about the magnitude of the pharmacodynamic variability of tacrolimus.

Statin Safety and Associated Adverse Events: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Abstract: One in 4 Americans >40 years of age takes a statin to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and other complications of atherosclerotic disease. The most effective statins produce a mean reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 55% to 60% at the maximum dosage, and 6 of the 7 marketed statins are available in generic form, which makes them affordable for most patients. Primarily using data from randomized controlled trials, supplemented with observational data where necessary, this scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of statin safety and tolerability. The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions such as chronic disease of the kidney and liver, human immunodeficiency viral infection, and organ transplants. The risk of statin-induced serious muscle injury, including rhabdomyolysis, is <0.1%, and the risk of serious hepatotoxicity is ≈0.001%. The risk of statin-induced newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus is ≈0.2% per year of treatment, depending on the underlying risk of diabetes mellitus in the population studied. In patients with cerebrovascular disease, statins possibly increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke; however, they clearly produce a greater reduction in the risk of atherothrombotic stroke and thus total stroke, as well as other cardiovascular events. There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendonitis. In US clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase. In contrast, in randomized clinical trials, the difference in the incidence of muscle symptoms without significantly raised creatinine kinase in statin-treated compared with placebo-treated participants is <1%, and it is even smaller (0.1%) for patients who discontinued treatment because of such muscle symptoms. This suggests that muscle symptoms are usually not caused by pharmacological effects of the statin. Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority. Overall, in patients for whom statin treatment is recommended by current guidelines, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in the management of organ transplantation.

Abstract: UNLABELLED Tacrolimus (FK-506) is an immunosuppressant agent that acts by a variety of different mechanisms which include inhibition of calcineurin. It is used as a therapeutic alternative to cyclosporin, and therefore represents a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy in organ transplant recipients. Tacrolimus is now well established for primary immunosuppression in liver and kidney transplantation, and experience with its use in other types of solid organ transplantation, including heart, lung, pancreas and intestinal, as well as its use for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT), is rapidly accumulating. Large randomised nonblind multicentre studies conducted in the US and Europe in both liver and kidney transplantation showed similar patient and graft survival rates between treatment groups (although rates were numerically higher with tacrolimus- versus cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in adults with liver transplants), and a consistent statistically significant advantage for tacrolimus with respect to acute rejection rate. Chronic rejection rates were also significantly lower with tacrolimus in a large randomised liver transplantation trial, and a trend towards a lower rate of chronic rejection was noted with tacrolimus in a large multicentre renal transplantation study. In general, a similar trend in overall efficacy has been demonstrated in a number of additional clinical trials comparing tacrolimus- with cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in various types of transplantation. One notable exception is in BMT, where a large randomised trial showed significantly better 2-year patient survival with cyclosporin over tacrolimus, which was primarily attributed to patients with advanced haematological malignancies at the time of (matched sibling donor) BMT. These survival results in BMT require further elucidation. Tacrolimus has also demonstrated efficacy in various types of transplantation as rescue therapy in patients who experience persistent acute rejection (or significant adverse effect's) with cyclosporin-based therapy, whereas cyclosporin has not demonstrated a similar capacity to reverse refractory acute rejection. A corticosteroid-sparing effect has been demonstrated in several studies with tacrolimus, which may be a particularly useful consideration in children receiving transplants. The differences in the tolerability profiles of tacrolimus and cyclosporin may well be an influential factor in selecting the optimal treatment for patients undergoing organ transplantation. Although both drugs have a similar degree of nephrotoxicity, cyclosporin has a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia, while tacrolimus has a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, some types of neurotoxicity (e.g. tremor, paraesthesia), diarrhoea and alopecia. CONCLUSION Tacrolimus is an important therapeutic option for the optimal individualisation of immunosuppressive therapy in transplant recipients.