In comparative studies, the combination of SRL and reduced TAC was inferior to other regimens. Specifically, MMF in combination with TAC provided numerically or significantly better results in terms of patient/graft AZD0530 mw survival and BPAR [51], [52] and [53], and both MMF/TAC and SRL/MMF provided better renal function [48], [50],

[51], [52] and [53]. CNIs remain the mainstay for maintenance immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplantation, with TAC being the most widely used. Although CNIs are associated with lower acute rejection rates, improvements in long-term graft survival have been harder to achieve [1] owing to nephrotoxicity that arises with long-term CNI use [3]. In order to avoid nephrotoxicity, CNI-sparing/withdrawal strategies are initiated early after transplantation, incorporating highly effective nonnephrotoxic Ibrutinib molecular weight drugs. For example, the addition

of mTOR inhibitors (EVR or SLR) with their complementary mechanism of action and favorable nephrotoxicity profile has enabled CNI reduction/withdrawal early posttransplantation [1] and [4]. Consequently, the current management of immunosuppression includes the sequential use of different immunosuppressive drug combinations over the lifetime of the graft. This increases the number and complexity of potentially clinically relevant immunosuppressive drug interactions, which require prompt identification, concentration monitoring, and dose adjustments. TDM remains a major support in patient management for assessing compliance, preventing AEs, and detecting drug interactions. TDM can provide additional

guidance to clinicians on the risk of potential toxicity if blood drug levels are high or acute rejection if levels are subtherapeutic. CNIs have a narrow therapeutic window and a high degree of inter- and intra-individual pharmacokinetic variation, which present a challenge when trying to achieve optimal dosing. Consequently, TDM is required, usually by determining C0, in order to adjust treatment in individual patients [15] and [16]. Pharmacokinetic Erastin ic50 studies have shown that mTOR inhibitors have variable oral bioavailability and large intra- and inter-patient variability in drug exposure [18] and [26]. In addition, exposure–response studies have determined that EVR and SRL have narrow therapeutic windows (3–8 ng/mL and 5–15 ng/mL, respectively). Because of these factors and the limited and inconsistent information on pharmacokinetic interactions between CNIs and mTOR inhibitors, it appears prudent to monitor drug levels when the dose of either agent is adjusted. For both EVR and SRL, there is a good correlation between C0 and AUC, which allows C0 to be used as a convenient and reliable measure of drug exposure, and is also a good indicator of clinical outcomes (improved efficacy and reduced toxicity) [54] and [55].