Author
Teun van Gelder
Other affiliations: Leiden University Medical Center
Bio: Teun van Gelder is an academic researcher from Erasmus University Rotterdam. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transplantation & Mycophenolic acid. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 230 publications receiving 8381 citations. Previous affiliations of Teun van Gelder include Leiden University Medical Center.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Barcelona1, Erasmus University Rotterdam2, Oslo University Hospital3, Université catholique de Louvain4, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc5, Mayo Clinic6, French Institute of Health and Medical Research7, University of Limoges8, Synlab Group9, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center10, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center11, Charité12, Leipzig University13, University of Utah14, Medical University of Warsaw15, St George's Hospital16, Kyushu University17, Christian Medical College & Hospital18, Leiden University Medical Center19, Erasmus University Medical Center20, Heidelberg University21, University of Colorado Denver22
TL;DR: It is concluded that considerable advances in the different fields of tacrolimus monitoring have been achieved during this last decade, and the Expert Committee concludes that 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 tacolimus therapy and to improve long-term outcomes for treated patients.
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.
338 citations
TL;DR: A roundtable meeting to discuss the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to guide immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil was held in New York in December 2004, and it was agreed that TDM might help optimize outcomes, especially in patients at higher risk of rejection.
Abstract: A roundtable meeting to discuss the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to guide immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil was held in New York in December 2004. Existing recommendations for the initial months after transplantation were updated. After ensuring adequate levels of mycophenolic acid (MPA, the active metabolite of mycophenolate mofetil) immediately after transplantation, optimal efficacy may require only a few dose adjustments, because intrapatient variability in exposure seems low. Recommendations based on current knowledge were made for posttransplantation sampling time points and for target MPA concentrations. Algorithms for estimating MPA exposure using limited sampling strategies were presented, and a new assay for MPA discussed. It was agreed that because of interpatient variability and the influence of concomitant immunosuppressants, TDM might help optimize outcomes, especially in patients at higher risk of rejection. The value of TDM in the general transplant population will be assessed from large, ongoing, randomized studies.
308 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that the pharmacokinetics of MMF are comparable in Mrp2‐deficient rats receiving either CsA or Tac as co‐medication, and this finding suggests thatCsA‐mediated inhibition of the biliary excretion of MPAG by theMrp2 transporter is the mechanism responsible for the interaction between Cs a and MMF.
303 citations
TL;DR: The goal of this consensus meeting was to offer information to transplant practitioners on clinically relevant pharmacokinetic characteristics of MPA, to rationalize the basis for currently advised target exposure ranges for MPA in various types of organ transplantation, and to summarize available methods for application of M PA TDM in clinical practice.
Abstract: With the increasing use of mycophenolic acid (MPA) in solid organ transplantation, the need for more accurate drug dosing has become evident. Personalized immunosuppressive therapy requires better strategies for avoidance of drug-related toxicity while maintaining efficacy. Few studies have assessed the clinical usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of MPA in solid organ transplantation in a prospective way, and they have produced opposing results. To provide clinicians with an objective and balanced clinical interpretation of the current scientific evidence on TDM of MPA, a consensus meeting involving 47 experts from around the world was commissioned by The Transplantation Society and held in Rome on November 20 to 21, 2008. The goal of this consensus meeting was to offer information to transplant practitioners on clinically relevant pharmacokinetic characteristics of MPA, to rationalize the basis for currently advised target exposure ranges for MPA in various types of organ transplantation, and to summarize available methods for application of MPA TDM in clinical practice. Although this consensus report does not evaluate the final role of MPA TDM in transplantation, it seeks to examine the current scientific evidence for concentration-controlled dosing of MPA.
263 citations
TL;DR: 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.
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.
260 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Recent progress on drug metabolism activity profiles, interindividual variability and regulation of expression, and the functional and clinical impact of genetic variation in drug metabolizing P450s are reviewed.
2,832 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: High-dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg daily for 5 days) and PE are equally effective in intermediate and severe forms and the choice between the two treatments depends on their respective contra-indications and local availability.
Abstract: L'incidence annuelle du syndrome de Guillain-Barre est de 1,5/100000 habitants La mortalite actuelle est estimee a environ 5 % d'apres des essais therapeutiques recents, bien conduits Dix pour cent des malades gardent des sequelles motrices tres invalidantes un an apres le debut des premiers signes neurologiques La prise en charge de ces malades necessite des equipes entrainees, multidisciplinaires, pouvant pratiquer l'ensemble des therapeutiques specifiques La corticotherapie per os'ou par voie intraveineuse est inefficace Les echanges plasmatiques sont le premier traitement dont l'efficacite a ete demontree par rapport a un groupe controle Les indications sont maintenant mieux connues Les formes benignes (marche possible) beneficient de 2 echanges plasmatiques; 2 echanges supplementaires sont realises en cas d'aggravation Dans les formes intermediaires (marche impossible) et les formes severes (recours a la ventilation mecanique), 4 echanges plasmatiques sont conseilles Il n'est pas utile d'augmenter leur nombre dans les formes severes ou en cas d'absence d'amelioration De fortes doses d'immunoglobulines donnees par voie intraveineuse (lq IV) [0,4 g/kg/j pendant 5 jours] sont aussi efficaces que les echanges plasmatiques dans les formes intermediaires et severes Dans ces formes, le choix entre Ig IV et echanges plasmatiques depend des contre-indications respectives de ces traitements et de leur faisabilite Les travaux en cours ont comme objectif de mieux preciser les indications respectives des echanges plasmatiques et des lq IV dans des formes de gravite differente, leur morbidite comparee, la dose optimale des lq IV
1,842 citations
TL;DR: The rationale of the study and its design is given, and a summary of the major findings and an update of the objectives and methods are presented.
Abstract: The Rotterdam Study is a prospective cohort study ongoing since 1990 in the city of Rotterdam in The Netherlands. The study targets cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, oncological, and respiratory diseases. As of 2008, 14,926 subjects aged 45 years or over comprise the Rotterdam Study cohort. The findings of the Rotterdam Study have been presented in over a 1,000 research articles and reports (see www.erasmus-epidemiology.nl/rotterdamstudy). This article gives the rationale of the study and its design. It also presents a summary of the major findings and an update of the objectives and methods.
1,448 citations
National Heart Foundation of Australia1, University of Toronto2, Cleveland Clinic3, University of Chicago4, University of Alberta5, Inova Fairfax Hospital6, Ochsner Health System7, University of Alabama at Birmingham8, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust9, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich10, Saint Barnabas Medical Center11, Duke University12, Primary Children's Hospital13, University of Pittsburgh14, University of Utah15, University of Maryland, Baltimore16, University of Vienna17, Stanford University18, University College London19, Washington University in St. Louis20, Loma Linda University21, University of A Coruña22, The Texas Heart Institute23, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven24, Northwestern University25, University of Wisconsin-Madison26, Yeshiva University27, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center28, University of Colorado Denver29, Drexel University30, University of Pennsylvania31, Mayo Clinic32, St Vincent Hospital33, Papworth Hospital34, Emory University35, Johns Hopkins University36
TL;DR: 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; Starlings R: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,USA; Chan M: university of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
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.
1,346 citations
TL;DR: This review considers the use of immunosuppressive drugs in organ transplantation, focusing on renal transplantation.
Abstract: Suppression of allograft rejection is central to successful organ transplantation; thus, immunosuppressive agents are crucial for successful allograft function. Immunosuppressive drugs are used for induction (intense immunosuppression in the initial days after transplantation), maintenance, and reversal of established rejection. This review considers the use of immunosuppressive drugs in organ transplantation, focusing on renal transplantation.
1,342 citations