ライフサイエンスコーパス: tacrolimus

1 h an initial 1-month treatment with low-dose tacrolimus.

2 prescribed after switching from twice-daily tacrolimus.

3 psy were randomized to wean off or remain on tacrolimus.

4 d despite treatment with prednisone and oral tacrolimus.

5 fting, then PTCy, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus.

6 d postoperatively with delayed initiation of tacrolimus.

7 s of skin cancers in LTR treated mainly with tacrolimus.

8 tive donor-specific antibodies) treated with tacrolimus.

9 doxycycline, oral isotretinoin, and topical tacrolimus.

10 tential differences between cyclosporine and tacrolimus.

11 e outcomes with belatacept-based regimens to tacrolimus.

12 ating calcineurin activity in the absence of Tacrolimus.

13 Patients were treated with tacrolimus 0.03% eye ointment instilled into the lower f

14 mized; 24 patients were treated with topical tacrolimus 0.05% and 16 patients were treated with topic

15 Topical tacrolimus 0.05% is safe, generally well tolerated, and

16 fetil (1 g three times a day, days 0-28) and tacrolimus (0.03 mg/kg a day, titrated to a goal level o

17 Prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.15-0.175mg/kg/day) immediately posttranspl

18 dose 0.2mg/kg/day); Arm 2: prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.15-0.175mg/kg/day) plus basiliximab; Arm 3

19 ) plus basiliximab; Arm 3: prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.2mg/kg/day delayed until Day 5) plus basil

20 and BCAR incidence versus prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.2mg/kg/day) administered immediately postt

21 t, Brown Norway recipients were treated with tacrolimus (1 mg/kg), whereas in a third group, liver gr

22 were conducted in the absence or presence of tacrolimus (10 ng/mL), everolimus (10 ng/mL), and predni

23 ite evidence (quinine, 34; cyclosporine, 15; tacrolimus, 12).

24 er 6 months targeted maintenance levels were tacrolimus, 2 to 4 ng/mL and sirolimus, 4 to 6 ng/mL or,

25 score achieved statistical significance with tacrolimus (27% reduction; P = 0.02), but was marginal w

26 Tacrolimus, 4 mg/d, and mycophenolate mofetil, 1.0 g/d,

27 volving pimecrolimus and 41 trials involving tacrolimus, 8 (20.5%) and 13 (31.7%), respectively, made

28 ys with prednisolone, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, a combination of these 3 drugs, everolimus,

29 tina-a mouse model of HHT vascular pathology-tacrolimus activated endothelial Smad1/5/8 and prevented

30 In HUVECs, tacrolimus activated Smad1/5/8 and opposed the pro-angio

31 Sequestration of FKBP12 by rapamycin or tacrolimus activates hepcidin both in vitro and in murin

32 nt adherence to and acceptance of once-daily tacrolimus (Advagraf) initiation in kidney and liver tra

33 improves target concentration achievement of tacrolimus after renal transplantation.

34 Tacrolimus also causes side effects, however, such as hy

35 Low-dose tacrolimus also increased the number of SDF-1-bearing ma

36 the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine and tacrolimus also inhibit BCR-mediated lytic induction but

37 In these cells, tacrolimus also inhibited Akt and p38 stimulation by vas

38 se models, we show that topical therapy with tacrolimus, an anti-T-cell immunosuppressive drug, is hi

39 The combination of low-dose tacrolimus and 1-hour HOPE resulted in 100% survival wit

40 ly assesses bioequivalence between innovator tacrolimus and 2 generics in individuals with a kidney o

41 as administered standard-dose cyclosporin or tacrolimus and an antimetabolite, mostly mycophenolate m

42 in the modern era, even after adjustment for tacrolimus and induction therapy (1% vs 8%, P < 0.001).

43 sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was more effective than tacrolimus and methotrexate (Tac/Mtx) in preventing acut

44 kg per day on days -3, -2, -1 in addition to tacrolimus and methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis.

45 Patients received GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus and methotrexate.

46 C subjects received similar exposure to both tacrolimus and MMF at 1 and 2 years.

47 eceived rituximab 1 month before transplant; tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil were started 1 week

48 harged on maintenance immunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil with/without steroi

49 nder maintenance immunosuppression (IS) with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil.

50 sociated with graft loss at 5 years, whereas tacrolimus and mycophenolate use was associated with red

51 d TEC lysis were preferentially inhibited by tacrolimus and prednisolone, and not by everolimus.

52 h 288 kidney transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus and prednisone were randomized for 3 differen

53 novo kidney transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus and prednisone, the use of EVR was associated

54 ty, and functional assays in hiPSC-CMs using tacrolimus and rosiglitazone, drugs targeting pathways p

55 We sought to determine if the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was more effective th

56 ne patient is taking belatacept with lowered tacrolimus and sirolimus trough levels.

57 Generic Hi and Generic Lo with the Innovator tacrolimus and with each other.

58 ansplantation to receive original or generic tacrolimus, and 25 (21 men, 4 women) provided two evalua

59 Prednisolone, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil modified fecal mic

60 lins and bone-marrow infusion then steroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil.

61 rvational studies suggest that cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and rituximab may be effective treatment opt

62 derate to potent topical corticosteroids for tacrolimus) are best placed to determine how topical cal

63 oduction of everolimus with reduced-exposure tacrolimus at 1 month after liver transplantation was ma

64 n all renal transplant patients treated with tacrolimus at our center from 2009 to 2013 was conducted

65 She was then given triple immunosuppression (tacrolimus, azathioprine, and corticosteroids), which wa

66 s variability in a "Symphony" style low-dose tacrolimus based regime, by collecting data from 432 pat

67 increased skeletal muscle compared with the tacrolimus-based regimen.

68 ate = 23.76; P < 0.001) when compared with a tacrolimus-based regimen.

69 x hospitalization on belatacept-based versus tacrolimus-based regimens.

70 ortality and allograft failure compared with tacrolimus-based regimens.

71 Tacrolimus-based therapy appeared superior to the CSA er

72 nd more severe acute rejection compared with tacrolimus-based therapy.

73 Maintenance regimens were tacrolimus-based.

74 A prolonged-release tacrolimus, basiliximab, and mycophenolate mofetil immun

75 All patients received prolonged-release tacrolimus, basiliximab, mycophenolate mofetil and 1 bol

76 t is, to our knowledge, the first mention of tacrolimus being used in a lotion formulation to treat D

77 Drug Administration (FDA)-approved compound Tacrolimus, blocks calcineurin's activity toward those p

78 L36alpha siRNA-CYnLIP (p<0.05) comparable to Tacrolimus but markedly less than imiquimod-only treatme

79 nosuppressant drugs such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus but not rapamycin also inhibit BCR-mediated E

80 Together, these results suggest that tacrolimus causes hypertension predominantly by inhibiti

81 e association between individually estimated tacrolimus clearance (daily tacrolimus dose [mg]/trough

82 Patients with high tacrolimus clearance eliminate more drug within a dose i

83 ipients were 1:1 randomized to belatacept or tacrolimus combined with basiliximab, mycophenolate mofe

84 istent with 5-year findings, subjects taking tacrolimus, compared with those taking cyclosporin, had

85 Low tacrolimus concentrations have been associated with high

86 Transient subtherapeutic tacrolimus concentrations may induce acute rejection epi

87 The decrease was related to predose trough tacrolimus concentrations or doses and disappeared upon

88 is often challenging to achieve and maintain tacrolimus concentrations within the target range.

89 tes mellitus (PTDM) with 2 prolonged-release tacrolimus corticosteroid minimization regimens.

90 ed that a high within-patient variability of tacrolimus could increase the rate of dnDSA development

91 A 10% increase in tacrolimus CV augmented the risk of acute rejection by 2

92 Overall, intrapatient tacrolimus CV was higher in AAs versus non-AAs (39.9 +/-

93 1 concentrations used to assess intrapatient tacrolimus CV.

94 treatment with the immunosuppressant FK506 (tacrolimus) decreases CSF white blood cell counts.

95 Tacrolimus dermatologic ointment is a potentially safe a

96 he significantly higher systemic exposure of tacrolimus, despite similar trough concentrations, may i

97 Generic tacrolimus did not meet the bioequivalence criteria; the

98 ut adverse events, the study group had lower tacrolimus dosages and blood levels.

99 dually estimated tacrolimus clearance (daily tacrolimus dose [mg]/trough concentration [mug/L]) and b

100 his study confirms the effect of CYP3A5*3 on tacrolimus dose requirement in liver transplantation and

101 ury at 7 months was reversed by reducing the tacrolimus dose to 14 mg twice per day.

102 Based on immune function values, tacrolimus doses were reduced 25% when values were less

103 receive either computerized or conventional tacrolimus dosing during the first 8 weeks after transpl

104 t of different once-daily, prolonged-release tacrolimus dosing regimens on renal function after de no

105 Tacrolimus dosing required adjustment during and after l

106 ata from 1106 patients initiating once-daily tacrolimus during posttransplant follow-up were analyzed

107 mber of immunosuppressive drugs, and dose of tacrolimus during the last 4 months of follow-up were pr

108 acrolimus-induced hypertension resulted from tacrolimus effects in renal epithelial cells directly or

109 limus (EVR + Reduced TAC), (ii) everolimus + tacrolimus elimination (TAC Elimination), or (iii) stand

110 erated and how this response was affected by tacrolimus, everolimus, prednisolone, and mycophenolic a

111 day 30 to (i) everolimus + reduced exposure tacrolimus (EVR + Reduced TAC), (ii) everolimus + tacrol

112 owed that early everolimus plus reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC) led to significantly better kidn

113 icable as a clinical dosing tool to optimize tacrolimus exposure and may potentially improve long-ter

114 e corticosteroids) was associated with lower tacrolimus exposure, and significantly reduced renal fun

115 e randomized to one of three treatment arms: tacrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL) qd, tacrolimus

116 Tacrolimus eye ointment 0.03% was effective for controll

117 ections of FDA-approved drugs, we identified tacrolimus (FK-506) as the most potent activator of ALK1

118 Short course tacrolimus (FK-506) monotherapy was withdrawn at postope

119 calcineurin inhibitor and immunosuppressant tacrolimus (FK-506) was prevented by Npas4 overexpressio

120 Mice received tacrolimus (FK-506, 0.1 mg/kg per day)/mycophenolate mof

121 Cyclosporin A (CsA) and tacrolimus (FK506) has been reported to reduce proteinur

122 neurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporin A and tacrolimus (FK506), have played a pivotal role in the pr

123 vHD are treated with cyclosporine A (CsA) or tacrolimus (FK506), which not only often causes severe a

124 e major tacrolimus metabolite 13-O-desmethyl tacrolimus for AUC, but it failed the EMA criterion.

125 ades of use, the optimal maintenance dose of tacrolimus for kidney transplant recipients is unknown.

126 er the curve(0-12) ratio of generic-original tacrolimus formulation was 1.17 (90% confidence interval

127 s >/= 6.5% was significantly higher for both tacrolimus formulations compared to CsA; 41.1% (Astagraf

128 etic and clinical characteristics of generic tacrolimus formulations versus the reference drug (Progr

129 After the first PK investigation, tacrolimus formulations were switched (1:1 dose ratio).

130 pression decreased significantly only in the tacrolimus group (P = 0.03).

131 Animals treated with tacrolimus have markedly improved lymphatic function wit

132 The pharmacokinetics of the Tacrolimus Hexal (TacHexal) formulation is similar to Pr

133 When treated with tacrolimus, however, BP and the renal abundance of phosp

134 Sirolimus replaced tacrolimus if serum creatinine remained above 2.0 mg/dL

135 GVHD prophylactic management was with tacrolimus immunosuppression alone.

136 The use of tacrolimus in our islet-cell transplant protocol caused

137 ic index generic immunosuppressants, such as tacrolimus, in transplant recipients.

138 However, it was unclear if tacrolimus-induced hypertension resulted from tacrolimus

139 earing VCA grafts with short course (21 day) tacrolimus induction therapy.

140 In cultured cells, tacrolimus inhibited dephosphorylation of NCC.

141 Arm 1: prolonged-release tacrolimus (initial dose 0.2mg/kg/day); Arm 2: prolonged

142 Delayed higher-dose prolonged-release tacrolimus initiation significantly reduced renal functi

143 tudy design, we observed equivalence between tacrolimus innovator and 2 generic products as well as b

144 Tacrolimus is a widely used immunosuppressive drug that

145 obilization produced by AMD3100 and low-dose tacrolimus is able to reduce by 25% the time of complete

146 ications for lymphedema treatment as topical tacrolimus is FDA-approved for other chronic skin condit

147 agent followed by mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus is presently the most frequently used immune

148 Although tacrolimus is the basis of most maintenance immunosuppre

149 The effect of an immunosuppressant, Tacrolimus, is also confirmed in the same experimental s

150 y a pharmacologic combination of AMD3100 and tacrolimus, leads to faster and better-quality wound hea

151 Conversion to once-daily tacrolimus led to an improved rate of adherence at month

152 olimus prevented rejection, whereas low-dose tacrolimus led to graft fibrosis within 4 weeks.

153 Tacrolimus level variability is a strong risk factor for

154 state of immunosuppression (correlation with tacrolimus level, r = -0.867, 95% CI -0.968 to -0.523, p

155 h high HLA alloimmune risk should not target tacrolimus levels <5 ng/ml unless essential, and monitor

156 a series of thresholds <6 ng/ml and the mean tacrolimus levels before dnDSA development in the contex

157 Theoretically, tacrolimus levels consistently outside the target therap

158 This suggests that highly variable tacrolimus levels predict worse outcomes postrenal trans

159 t in allograft dysfunction as subtherapeutic tacrolimus levels predispose to episodes of acute reject

160 match score were less likely to tolerate low tacrolimus levels without developing dnDSA.

161 hat assessed the efficacy of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus long after efficacy had been established is a

162 prescribed a novel, off-label preparation of tacrolimus lotion, 0.3%, in an alcohol base as an adjunc

163 Topical tacrolimus lotion, 0.3%, in an alcohol base may be a pot

164 SCABE criteria were also met for the major tacrolimus metabolite 13-O-desmethyl tacrolimus for AUC,

165 Bioequivalence of the major tacrolimus metabolite was also assessed.

166 Patients were randomized to tacrolimus/methotrexate (standard) or tacrolimus/methotr

167 comparing tacrolimus/sirolimus (Tac/Sir) vs tacrolimus/methotrexate (Tac/Mtx) as graft-versus-host d

168 zed to tacrolimus/methotrexate (standard) or tacrolimus/methotrexate/sirolimus (experimental).

169 the context of early steroid withdrawal and tacrolimus minimization or withdrawal.

170 G), and a maintenance arm (part 2) comparing tacrolimus minimization versus withdrawal.

171 orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) with tacrolimus minimization.

172 zumab, and corticosteroids until day 4) with tacrolimus, MMF, and corticosteroid continuation (CC).

173 we found that AMD3100 combined with low-dose tacrolimus mobilized increased number of lineage-negativ

174 Two patients were weaned to a low-dose tacrolimus monotherapy together with monthly belatacept

175 domized controlled trial comparing early CW (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), daclizumab, and

176 ersus RATG for induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids.

177 ppression after transplantation consisted of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and glucocorticoids.

178 antithymyocyte globulin, methylprednisolone, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone were c

179 ects received rabbit antithymocyte globulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone.

180 = 25) induction therapy, in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids.

181 imab and standardized immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids.

182 me immunosuppressive treatment that included tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, prednisone, and, for

183 ospectively in consecutive recipients taking tacrolimus/mycophenolate immunosuppression at a single c

184 fective in deceased donor KTRs maintained on tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil-based regimen along wit

185 renal transplant recipients (RTX) receiving tacrolimus (n=34) or cyclosporine A (CsA) (n=24) or an m

186 in contrast to prednisolone and MPA, neither tacrolimus nor everolimus could inhibit the CD4CD28 T-ce

187 LT), but there are little data on the use of tacrolimus once-daily (TAC QD) in this population.

188 ection (ACR); stable (n = 25) on maintenance tacrolimus; operationally tolerant (n = 7).

189 Tacrolimus or sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil exposu

190 /kg/dose), with early steroid withdrawal and tacrolimus or sirolimus maintenance.

191 Patients were weaned to tacrolimus or sirolimus monotherapy at 3 months.

192 onfidence interval [CI], 2.58-14.51), use of tacrolimus (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.17-6.00) and corticoster

193 ments were identified in which pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, or topical corticosteroids were compared wit

194 , burning sensation was more pronounced with tacrolimus (P = 0.002).

195 lium decreased significantly in both groups (tacrolimus, P = 0.003; methylprednisolone, P = 0.008), w

196 Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics is similar with TacHexal and

197 Tacrolimus PK was measured by ultraperformance liquid ch

198 cebo-controlled minimization trial comparing tacrolimus placebo (TAC-PLAC) and TAC short-term steroid

199 Anti-GvHD prophylaxis of tacrolimus, post-transplant cyclophosphamide, and CD28 b

200 e, he was taking immunosuppression with oral tacrolimus, prednisone, and mycophenolate mofetil, which

201 suppressive protocol included thymoglobulin, tacrolimus, prednisone, and mycophenolate mofetil.

202 cluded thymoglobulin-rituximab induction and tacrolimus-prednisone maintenance.

203 Full-dose tacrolimus prevented rejection, whereas low-dose tacroli

204 acrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL) qd, tacrolimus (Prograf) bid, or cyclosporine (CsA) bid.

205 nti-thymocyte globulin-mycophenolate mofetil-tacrolimus protocol.

206 The calcineurin inhibitor FK506 (tacrolimus) reduced cell death and lateral transfer in v

207 hese observations support further use of our tacrolimus regimen in this patient population.

208 ce of dnDSA development than recipients on a tacrolimus regimen.

209 High intrapatient variability of tacrolimus relates to a worse outcome in transplant reci

210 Tacrolimus repurposing has therefore therapeutic potenti

211 ession levels; both patients who were taking tacrolimus required immunosuppression dose adjustments d

212 casone: risk ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68; tacrolimus: risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66).

213 Tacrolimus significantly and SRL modestly inhibited inte

214 Cyclosporine A and tacrolimus significantly reduced IFNgamma production in

215 se 3 clinical trial (BMT CTN 0402) comparing tacrolimus/sirolimus (Tac/Sir) vs tacrolimus/methotrexat

216 Finally, tacrolimus stimulated Smad1/5/8 signaling in C2C12 cells

217 Previously, we reported that tacrolimus stimulates the renal thiazide-sensitive sodiu

218 Lastly, only the 1 mg tacrolimus strength was utilized in this study.

219 TAC Elimination), or (iii) standard exposure tacrolimus (TAC Control).

220 tment groups: (i) everolimus (EVR) + reduced tacrolimus (TAC) (n = 245); (ii) TAC control (n = 243) o

221 munosuppressive drug concentrations, such as tacrolimus (TaC) and cyclosporin A (CsA), is important i

222 Tacrolimus (Tac) and Cyclosporine A (CyA) calcineurin in

223 orticosteroid (CS)-free regimen coupled with tacrolimus (Tac) and dose-intensified mycophenolate mofe

224 Agouti into Lewis rats applying single-dose tacrolimus (TAC) at varying concentrations.

225 f whom 31 initiated cyclosporin (CsA) and 47 tacrolimus (Tac) based immunosuppression.

226 , with little long-term data from the modern tacrolimus (TAC) era using lower doses.

227 on and scaring lesions in patients receiving tacrolimus (TAC) minimization and elimination immunosupp

228 t involved administering a low daily dose of tacrolimus (TAC) to a cohort of 17 patients with a recur

229 engraftment and function and protect against tacrolimus (Tac) toxicity.

230 transplant recipients not infected with HIV, tacrolimus (TAC) trough levels (C0) or cyclosporine (CsA

231 Previously, we had reported the role of tacrolimus (TAC) versus sirolimus (SRL) on the generatio

232 The patient's ability to absorb cyclosporin, tacrolimus (Tac), enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (E

233 C received standard maintenance dosing with tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and corti

234 rolimus (SRL) + mycophenolate (MPA) or SRL + tacrolimus (Tac), relative to the control-regimen: Tac +

235 Tacrolimus (TAC)-based regimens are the most common amon

236 ients exposed to immunosuppressants, such as tacrolimus (TAC).

237 ransplant patients on cyclosporin A (CsA) or tacrolimus (Tac).

238 ansplant patients were randomized to generic tacrolimus (TacHexal) or Prograf in a 6-month open-label

239 ady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of a generic tacrolimus (Tacni) formulation with the original (Progra

240 Generic tacrolimus (Tacni) was not found to be bioequivalent to

241 ransplantation with concomitant reduction in tacrolimus targets.

242 level (Ctrough, 3-8 ng/mL), prednisone, and tacrolimus (TCL) (target Ctrough, 2-5 ng/mL).

243 Transplant patients on tacrolimus therapy exhibit a reduced glomerular filtrati

244 Calcineurin can be inhibited with Tacrolimus through the recruitment and inhibition of the

245 dult renal transplants receiving twice-daily tacrolimus throughout their first posttransplant year, w

246 LA-4Ig administration or suboptimal doses of tacrolimus to induce long-term skin graft acceptance in

247 treated by switching immunosuppression from tacrolimus to sirolimus.

248 alence for the narrow therapeutic index drug tacrolimus translates from healthy volunteers to individ

249 ed for use of belatacept in combination with tacrolimus, transplant center effects, and differing app

250 idence was higher in belatacept-treated than tacrolimus-treated 55% versus 10% (P = 0.006).

251 on rate was compared between belatacept- and tacrolimus-treated patients and immunological biomarkers

252 tterns varied over time in cyclosporine- and tacrolimus-treated patients and were somewhat different

253 be particularly effective for lowering BP in tacrolimus-treated patients with hypertension.

254 Interestingly, among tacrolimus-treated patients, different metabolic signatu

255 Cellular rejection was minimized by tacrolimus treatment from day -1.

256 Tacrolimus treatment resulted in a reduction of albuminu

257 Acute tacrolimus treatment transiently increases hepcidin in w

258 and the abundance of phosphorylated NCC with tacrolimus treatment.

259 measure was the clinical response to topical tacrolimus treatment.

260 evaluated the association between discharge tacrolimus trough concentration and the incidence of bio

261 nt population predisposed to BPAR, discharge tacrolimus trough concentration less than 8 ng/mL was as

262 nd peak panel-reactive antibody, a discharge tacrolimus trough concentration less than 8 ng/mL was si

263 divided into two groups based on a discharge tacrolimus trough concentration of 8 ng/mL.

264 We evaluated mean TAC C0 (tacrolimus trough concentration) and TAC time in therape

265 The median proportion of tacrolimus trough concentrations within the target range

266 d HLA-DR/DQ dnDSA had a higher proportion of tacrolimus trough levels <5 ng/ml, which continued to be

267 Tacrolimus trough levels and laboratory values were clos

268 antibody (dnDSA) development correlates with tacrolimus trough levels and the recipient's individuali

269 e conclude that HLA-DR/DQ eplet mismatch and tacrolimus trough levels are independent predictors of d

270 We analyzed the frequency of tacrolimus trough levels below a series of thresholds <6

271 nal transplant recipients with 50,011 serial tacrolimus trough levels had HLA-DR/DQ eplet mismatch de

272 Mean tacrolimus trough levels in the 6 months before dnDSA de

273 Baseline characteristics and mean tacrolimus trough levels were comparable between arms.

274 Tacrolimus trough levels were readily achieved posttrans

275 n (30 mg, 6 and 24 h after reperfusion), and tacrolimus (trough levels 8-12 ng/mL) was used for maint

276 Tacrolimus twice-daily (TAC BID) is widely used in lung

277 uate the target concentration achievement of tacrolimus using computerized dosing compared with conve

278 cipients; little is known about intrapatient tacrolimus variabilities impact on racial disparities.

279 High tacrolimus variability (CV >40%) was a significant expla

280 Tacrolimus variability 6 to 12 months after renal transp

281 High intrapatient tacrolimus variability has been associated with worse cl

282 We investigated the effect of tacrolimus variability in a "Symphony" style low-dose ta

283 ion in AAs was reduced by 46% when including tacrolimus variability in modeling and reduced by 40% fo

284 Tacrolimus variability is a significant explanatory vari

285 These data demonstrate that intrapatient tacrolimus variability is strongly associated with acute

286 High tacrolimus variability may identify a subset of patients

287 Tacrolimus variability was a significant risk factor for

288 Intrapatient tacrolimus variability was assessed using the coefficien

289 ous resistance to the antifungal drug FK506 (tacrolimus) via two distinct mechanisms.

290 Tacrolimus was initiated at 4.79 +/- 13.3 days with a le

291 Topical tacrolimus was more effective than methylprednisolone in

292 For 94.9% of patients, once-daily tacrolimus was prescribed after switching from twice-dai

293 150 mumol/L, not significant), whereas mean tacrolimus was similar (7.32 vs. 7.22 ng/mL, n.s.).

294 Tacrolimus was the primary immunosuppression in 91% of p

295 In total, 638 patients treated with oral tacrolimus were included in the analysis.

296 Importantly, dose adjustments for tacrolimus were necessary for maintaining sufficient tro

297 Recipients treated with tacrolimus who developed HLA-DR/DQ dnDSA had a higher pr

298 A total of 1711 tacrolimus whole blood concentrations were evaluated.

299 of 14) and/or de novo DSAs (5 of 14) in the tacrolimus withdrawal arm.

300 elated with development of DSAs and/or AR on tacrolimus withdrawal.