4.3 Review

Everolimus and sirolimus in transplantation-related but different

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG SAFETY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 1055-1070

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/14740338.2015.1040388

关键词

comparison; drug metabolism; everolimus; mitochondria; mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2; nephrotoxicity; neuronal metabolism; pharmacolcinetics; sirolimus; vascular inflammation

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma
  2. United States National Institutes of Health [R01HD70511]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) sirolimus and everolimus are used not only as immunosuppressants after organ transplantation in combination with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) but also as proliferation signal inhibitors coated on drug-eluting stents and in cancer therapy. Notwithstanding their related chemical structures, both have distinct pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynannic and toxicodynannic properties. Areas covered: The additional hydroxyethyl group at the C(40) of the everolimus molecule results in different tissue and subcellular distribution, different affinities to active drug transporters and drug-metabolizing enzymes as well as differences in drug-target protein interactions including a much higher potency in terms of interacting with the mTOR complex 2 than sirolimus. Said mechanistic differences as well as differences found in clinical trials in transplant patients are reviewed. Expert opinion: In comparison to sirolimus, everolimus has higher bioavailability, a shorter terminal half-life, different blood metabolite patterns, the potential to antagonize the negative effects of CNIs on neuronal and kidney cell metabolism (which sirolimus enhances), the ability to stimulate mitochondria! oxidation (which sirolimus inhibits) and to reduce vascular inflammation to a greater extent. A head-to-head, randomized trial comparing the safety and tolerability of these two mTOR inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients is merited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据