Rev Med Interne

The pharmacokinetics of drugs, such as immunosuppressants, justify the need of measuring their blood concentrations in order to adjust their dosage. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) of ciclosporin, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil has shown its benefit particularly in the management of renal transplantees, in order to prevent graft rejection. When prescribed in autoimmune diseases, their pharmacokinetic variability and the variability of clinical response would justify TDM in practice. TDM may be useful in systemic lupus, for hydroxychloroquine, in order to monitor patient compliance. Despite insufficient data in the literature, for mycophenolate mofetil, TDM would permit to maintain clinical remission in adults and children with lupus nephritis, as well as in mucosal pemphigoid and idiopathic nephrotic syndrome in children. Studies are still necessary to validate the thresholds and TDM conditions. For azathioprine, TPMT phenotyping is recommended before prescription. For methotrexate, tacrolimus and ciclosporin, data are still sparse on the benefit of TDM, although it may improve tolerance to tacrolimus in lupus. Finally, for infliximab, in case of loss of response in maintenance, TDM may be proposed in parallel with detection of anti-drug antibodies

Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated–receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan–Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P = 0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = 0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage