Retrospective cohort study reveals that early tacrolimus underexposure independently predicts 12-month acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, highlighting the need for rapid dose...
Background: Tacrolimus is a key component of immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplantation but is characterized by a narrow therapeutic index and considerable pharmacokinetic variability. Although the month 3 concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio identifies fast metabolizers at an increased risk of inferior outcomes after transplantation, very early C/D ratios lack prognostic value. Therefore, identifying early exposure metrics that capture cumulative tacrolimus exposure rather than single time-point concentrations represents an important challenge for therapeutic drug monitoring. This study evaluated whether early tacrolimus underexposure (trough concentration <8 ng/mL during postoperative days 1–10) predicts 12-month acute rejection (AR) and examined its association with the month 3 metabolizer phenotype. Methods: This retrospective single-center study analyzed 374 kidney transplant recipients with complete pharmacokinetic data for the month 3 C/D classification and an extended cohort of 609 recipients transplanted between 2007 and 2018 for rejection analyses. Results: The primary end point was biopsy-proven AR within 12 months. A threshold of 0.29 for the proportion of postoperative days 1–10 with trough levels <8 ng/mL provided the highest sensitivity-specificity balance. Values above this cutoff independently predicted 12-month AR. Early tacrolimus exposure patterns showed only a modest ability to discriminate the month 3 metabolizer phenotype. Conclusions: Early tacrolimus underexposure is a simple and clinically relevant predictor of 12-month AR, complementing C/D-ratio-based risk stratification at 3 months. These findings align with the evidence that high early tacrolimus clearance and low tacrolimus exposure increase AR risk and support the recommendations for optimizing early tacrolimus dosing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Menke et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: