If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||
![]() Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and TherapeuticsVolume 29 Issue 5, Pages 425 - 430 Published Online: 8 Oct 2004 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 70K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Diltiazem use in tacrolimus-treated renal transplant recipients Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd KEYWORDS antihypertensive therapy • calcium channel blockers • diltiazem • drug interaction • hypertension control • immunosuppressive drugs • safety Summary
Background: Calcium channel blockers are widely used in the treatment of post-transplant hypertension but have the potential for drug interaction with calcineurin inhibitors. Renal allograft outcomes when diltiazem is used with cyclosporine have been reported, but similar data with tacrolimus are not available. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all our renal transplant recipients from March 1997 to March 2002 who were given tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether diltiazem was started in the first postoperative week. Outcome measures included renal function up to 2 years post-transplant, blood pressure (BP) control, tacrolimus exposure, and costs related to tacrolimus monitoring. Results: Sixty-four patients constituted the diltiazem group and 32 the control group. Their baseline characteristics were similar. The mean average daily dose of diltiazem used was 213·95 mg/day. There was no difference in renal function, graft survival, or patient survival over 2 years. BP control was similar although the diltiazem group required more medication. Diltiazem was discontinued in four patients due to side-effects. There was no difference in tacrolimus-related side-effects between the two groups. There was also no difference in tacrolimus exposure, cost related to tacrolimus monitoring, or combined costs when the expense of diltiazem was added. Conclusion: Diltiazem use is acceptably safe and efficacious in renal transplant recipients treated with tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive therapy. It can be considered as a first-line antihypertensive in these patients and is cost neutral for tacrolimus use. Received 22 March 2004, Accepted 16 June 2004 |