Key result
Maternal everolimus crosses the placenta, producing similar neonatal blood levels at birth without immediate complications.
Why the study?
There were no prior reports of everolimus use during pregnancy after heart transplantation and its pharmacokinetics in the newborn were unknown.
Case Report (n=1)
Case suggests EVL feasible in advanced post-HTx pregnancy; leaves open neonatal pharmacokinetics and safety.
The use of everolimus (EVL) as primary immunosuppression is steadily increasing in heart transplantation (HTx) patients. Limited data currently exist in kidney transplantation, but there is no report of EVL use during pregnancy after HTx and its pharmacokinetics in the newborn. We report a case of an unplanned pregnancy discovered at 21 weeks of gestation in a female HTx patient aged 40 years treated with EVL and cyclosporine (CyA). Because pregnancy was advanced, immunosuppression therapy was left unchanged. At 36 weeks, a healthy infant was delivered. At birth, CyA blood levels were lower in the neonate, but EVL concentrations in maternal and neonatal umbilical blood were similar. Amniotic fluid concentrations were undetectable for both drugs. In the newborn, EVL was measurable at 5 days after birth, whereas CyA disappeared within 2 days. Cord blood displayed a normal count of B and T cells and CD4, CD8 and natural killer cell populations. At birth, both mother and newborn displayed the same blood levels of EVL; therefore, a filter effect of the placenta may be hypothesized for CyA but not for EVL. No immediate complications were observed with this pregnancy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
FIOCCHI et al. (2015) conducted a case report in Heart transplantation and pregnancy (n=1). Everolimus and cyclosporine was evaluated on Pharmacokinetics in the newborn and pregnancy complications. Everolimus crossed the placenta, resulting in similar maternal and neonatal blood levels at birth, with no immediate pregnancy complications observed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: