Ciclosporin + Calcium-channel blockers - Drug Interactions

Diltiazem,nicardipine and verapamil markedly raise serumciclosporin levels but also appear to possess kidney protective effects. A single case describes elevated ciclosporin levels caused bynisoldipine. Nifedipine normally appears not to interact,but risesand falls in ciclosporin levels have been seen in a few patients. Felodipine,isradipine, lacidipine and nitrendipine normally appearnot to raise serum ciclosporin levels. Amlodipine has modestlyincreased ciclosporin levels in some studies,but not in others, andit may also have kidney-protective properties.

Ten hypertensive patients with kidney transplants taking ciclosporin (3 of them also taking azathioprine) were also given amlodipine 5 to 10mg daily for 4 weeks. The hypertension was well controlled, drug well tolerated, and pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin remained unaltered (See reference number 1). However, another study in 11 hypertensive kidney transplant patients found that amlodipine, given for 7 weeks, raised ciclosporin levels by an average of 40%, without affecting creatinine levels (See reference number 2). A review identified two other studies that have found increases in ciclosporin levels of 23 % and 43 % with amlodipine,whereas four studies have found no change (See reference number 3). Amlodipine is reported to reduce ciclosporin-associated nephrotoxicity in a study in patients with psoriasis,(See reference number 4)and in a review of kidney-transplant recipients (See reference number 3).

A pharmacokinetic study in 9 patients taking ciclosporin found that addition of diltiazem 180mg daily increased trough blood level, maximum blood level and half-life of ciclosporin by 112%, 37%, and 43%, respectively (See reference number 5). Sixty-five kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin and diltiazem were found to need less ciclosporin when compared with 63 control patients not given diltiazem (7.3 mg/kg daily compared with 9 mg/kg daily). There were considerable individual differences in dose requirements (See reference number 6). Other studies clearly confirm that diltiazem can raise ciclosporin blood levels (See reference number 7-32). In some cases ciclosporin blood levels were not only controlled by reducing ciclosporin dosage by 30 to 60%, but it appeared that diltiazem had a kidney protective role (reduced nephrotoxicity, fewer rejection episodes and haemodialysis sessions) (See reference number 11,22,33-37). Another study found that a reduction in ciclosporin dose of about 21 % was required for both men and women during chronic administration of diltiazem 90mg twice daily, despite reports of higher activity of cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4 in women than in men (See reference number 38).

Thirteen kidney transplant patients had no significant changes in their serum ciclosporin levels when they took felodipine 2.5 to 10mg daily and serum creatinine levels were also unchanged. Mean blood pressures fell from 161/100 to 152/90 mmHg (See reference number 39). Another study found no significant changes in ciclosporin levels in patients also given felodipine (See reference number 40). A single 10mg dose of felodipine was found to have beneficial effects on blood pressure,renal haemodynamics, renal tubular sodium and water handling in ciclosporin-treated kidney transplant patients. The effects of long-term use were not studied (See reference number 41). A single-dose study in 12 healthy subjects found that maximum serum levels of ciclosporin 5 mg/kg were slightly raised by 16 % by felodipine 10 mg, while AUC and maximum plasma level of felodipine were raised by 58 % and 151%, respectively, but blood pressures were unchanged (See reference number 42). The same group of workers also briefly described acute and short-term studies in groups of kidney transplant and dermatological patients,which found that felodipine 5 to 10mg reduced blood pressure and opposed ciclosporin nephrotoxicity (See reference number 43). A study in heart transplant patients taking ciclosporin found that felodipine attenuated hypertrophic effects of ciclosporin on transplanted hearts (See reference number 44).

Ten kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin,prednisone and azathioprine started taking lacidipine 4mg daily. A very small increase in trough blood levels (6%) and AUC (14%) of ciclosporin occurred. The blood pressures fell from 142/93 to 125/79 mmHg, and 14-hour urinary output rose from 1401 to 2050 mL (See reference number 49).

The manufacturers of lercanidipine contraindicate concurrent use of ciclosporin as plasma levels of lercanidipine were raised threefold by ciclosporin, and ciclosporin AUC was raised by 21 % by lercanidipine (See reference number 50).

Nicardipine 20mg three times daily raised ciclosporin blood levels in 9 patients by 110 % (from 226 to 430 nanograms/mL, range 24 to 341%). Their serum creatinine concentrations rose from 136 to 147 micromol/L (See reference number 51).

Other studies have found increases in serum ciclosporin levels,in some cases as much as two to threefold, when nicardipine was given (See reference number 52-58).

Five of 9 patients who had an interaction with nicardipine (see above) had no interaction when they were given nifedipine (See reference number 51). No changes in ciclosporin levels were seen in other studies,(See reference number 36,59-63) but raised(See reference number 17,20) and reduced levels(See reference number 64)have been reported in others. Two studies found that nifedipine appeared to protect patients against nephrotoxicity of ciclosporin (See reference number 65,66). However, there is some evidence that adverse effects of nifedipine such as flushing, rash(See reference number 67) and gingival overgrowth may be increased (See reference number 68-71). However, another study in 121 renal transplant patients found prevalence of gingival overgrowth in patients taking ciclosporin was increased (but not to a statistically significant extent) by concurrent use of calcium-channel blockers (not specified) (See reference number 72).

A 46-year-old man taking azathioprine,prednisolone and ciclosporin after a kidney transplant 18 months previously was given nisoldipine 5mg twice daily. During following month his ciclosporin levels rose from a range of 100 to 150 micrograms/L up to 200 micrograms/L and an increase in serum creatinine levels occurred. His ciclosporin dose was gradually reduced from 325 to 250mg daily, and his ciclosporin and creatinine levels returned to acceptable range (See reference number 73).

Nitrendipine 20mg daily for 3 weeks had no significant effect on ciclosporin blood levels in 16 kidney transplant patients (See reference number 74)

Twenty-two kidney transplant patients given ciclosporin and verapamil had ciclosporin blood levels that were 50 to 70 % higher than in 18 other patients not given verapamil,despite similar ciclosporin doses in both groups. Serum creatinine levels were lower in those taking verapamil. Moreover, only 3 of 22 had rejection episodes within 4 weeks compared with 10 out of 18 not given verapamil (See reference number 75).

Other studies have found that verapamil 120 to 320mg daily can increase,double or even triple ciclosporin blood levels in individual patients with kidney or heart transplants (See reference number 24,40,62,64,76-80). Combined use does not apparently increase severity or prevalence of gingival overgrowth caused by ciclosporin (See reference number 81).

The increased ciclosporin levels are largely due to calcium-channel blockers inhibiting ciclosporin metabolism by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4 in liver. Note that, of calcium-channel blockers, diltiazem and verapamil are strongest CYP3A4 inhibitors (see Calcium-channel blockers, ). Diltiazem also appears to reduce ischaemia-induced renal tubular necrosis (See reference number 82). Other calcium-channel blockers also seem to have a kidney-protective effect. The raised felodipine levels are possibly due to competitive inhibition by ciclosporin of intestinal and liver metabolism,or changes in P-glycoprotein activity.

The interactions of ciclosporin with diltiazem,nicardipine and verapamil are established and relatively well documented. Concurrent use need not be avoided,but ciclosporin levels should be well monitored and dosage reductions made as necessary. Even though ciclosporin blood levels are increased,these calcium-channel blockers appear to have a kidney-protective effect. One study(See reference number 83) noted that, although calcium-channel blockers increase ciclosporin blood levels, this is of no harm to patient, since no changes in renal function were observed. With diltiazem and verapamil ciclosporin dosage can apparently be reduced by about 25 to 50 % and possibly more with nicardipine. One case suggests that this is also true with nisoldipine. Several studies suggest that substantial cost savings can be made by combining either diltiazem(See reference number 13,84,85) or verapamil(See reference number 24) with ciclosporin. Take care not to substitute one diltiazem product for another after patient has been stabilised because there is evidence that their bioequivalence differences may alter extent of interaction (See reference number 27,86). Concurrent use with lercanidipine is contraindicated by manufacturers (See reference number 50).

The situation with amlodipine is also uncertain,but isradipine, lacidipine and nitrendipine appear to be non-interacting alternatives. Many of calcium channel blockers have a kidney-protective effect.

Toupance O,Lavaud S, Canivet E, Bernaud C, Hotton J-M, Chanard J. Antihypertensive effect of amlodipine and lack of interference with cyclosporine metabolism in renal transplantrecipients. Hypertension (1994) 24, 297–300.

Pesavento TE,Jones PA, Julian BA, Curtis JJ. Amlodipine increases cyclosporine levels inhypertensive renal transplant patients: results of a prospective study. J Am Soc Nephrol (1996) 7, 831–5.

Schrama YC,Koomans HA. Interactions of cyclosporin A and amlodipine: blood cyclosporinA levels, hypertension and kidney function. J Hypertens (1998) 16 (Suppl 4), S33–S38.

Raman GV,Campbell SK, Farrer A, Albano JDM, Cook J. Modifying effects of amlodipineon cyclosporin A-induced changes in renal function in patients with psoriasis. J Hypertens (1998) 16 (Suppl 4), S39–S41.

Foradori A,Mezzano S, Videla C, Pefaur J, Elberg A. Modification of the pharmacokineticsof cyclosporine A and metabolites by the concomitant use of Neoral and diltiazem or ketoconazole in stable adult kidney transplants. Transplant Proc (1998) 30, 1685–7.

Kohlhaw K,Wonigeit K, Frei U, Oldhafer K, Neumann K, Pichlmayr R. Effect of calciumchannel blocker diltiazem on cyclosporine A blood levels and dose requirements. Transplant Proc (1988) 20 (Suppl 2), 572–4.

Pochet JM,Pirson Y. Cyclosporin-diltiazem interaction. Lancet (1986) i, 979.

Griño JM,Sabate I, Castelao AM, Alsina J. Influence of diltiazem on cyclosporin clearance.Lancet (1986) i, 1387.

Kunzendorf U,Walz G, Neumayer H-H, Wagner K, Keller F, Offermann G. Einfluss vonDiltiazem auf die Ciclosporin-Blutspiegel. Klin Wochenschr (1987) 65, 1101–3.

Sabaté I,Griñó JM, Castelao AM, Huguet J, Serón D, Blanco A. Cyclosporin-diltiazem interaction: comparison of cyclosporin levels measured with two monoclonal antibodies.Transplant Proc (1989) 21, 1460–1.

Choi KC,Kang YJ, Kim SK, Ryu SB. Effects of the calcium channel blocker diltiazem onthe blood and serum levels of cyclosporin A. Chonnam J Med Sci (1989) 2, 131–6.

Campistol JM,Oppenheimer F, Vilardell J, Ricart MJ, Alcaraz A, Ponz E, Andreu J. Interaction between ciclosporin and diltiazem in renal transplant patients. Nephron (1991) 57, 241–

2.

Valantine H,Keogh A, McIntosh N, Hunt S, Oyer P, Schroeder J. Cost containment-Coadministration of diltiazem with cyclosporine following cardiac transplant. J Heart Transplant (1990) 9, 68.

Bourge RC,Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Figg WD, White-Williams C, Ketchum C. Diltiazem-cyclosporine interaction in cardiac transplant recipients: impact on cyclosporine dose and medication costs. Am J Med (1991) 90, 402–4.

Maddux MS,Veremis SA, Bauma WD, Pollak R. Significant drug interactions with cyclosporine. Hosp Ther (1987) 12, 56–70.

Brockmöller J,Neumayer H-H, Wagner K, Weber W, Heinemeyer G, Kewitz H, Roots I.Pharmacokinetic interaction between cyclosporin and diltiazem. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1990) 38, 237–42.

Diaz C,Gillum DM. Interaction of diltiazem and nifedipine with cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int (1989) 35, 513.

Wagner K,Albrecht S, Neumayer H-H. Prevention of posttransplant acute tubular necrosisby the calcium antagonist diltiazem: a prospective randomized study. Am J Nephrol (1987) 7, 287–91.

McCauley J,Ptachcinski RJ, Shapiro R. The cyclosporine-sparing effects of diltiazem in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc (1989) 21, 3955–7.

Castelao AM. Cyclosporine A – drug interactions. 2nd Int Conf Therapeutic Drug MonitoringToxicology,Barcelona, Spain, 1992. 203–9.

Shennib H,Auger J-L. Diltiazem improves cyclosporine dosage in cystic fibrosis lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant (1994) 13, 292–6.

Macdonald P,Keogh A, Connell J, Harvison A, Richens D, Spratt P. Diltiazem co-administration reduces cylosporine toxicity after heart transplantation: a prospective randomisedstudy. Transplant Proc (1992) 24, 2259–62.

Masri MA,Shakuntala V, Shanwaz M, Zaher M, Dhawan I, Yasin I, Pingle A. Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in renal transplant patients on diltiazem. Transplant Proc (1994) 26, 1921.

Sketris IS,Methot ME, Nicol D, Belitsky P, Knox MG. Effect of calcium-channel blockerson cyclosporine clearance and use in renal transplant patients. Ann Pharmacother (1994) 28, 1227–31.

Bleck JS,Thiesemann C, Kliem V, Christians U, Hecker H, Repp H, Frei U, Westhoff-BleckM, Manns M, Sewing KF. Diltiazem increases blood concentrations of cyclized cyclosporinemetabolites resulting in different cyclosporine metabolite patterns in stable male and femalerenal allograft recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1996) 41, 551–6.

Morris RG,Jones TE. Diltiazem disposition and metabolism in recipients of renal transplants.Ther Drug Monit (1998) 20, 365–70.

Jones TE,Morris RG, Mathew TH. Formulation of diltiazem affects cyclosporin-sparing activity. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1997) 52, 55–8.

Jones TE,Morris RG, Mathew TH. Diltiazem-cyclosporin pharmacokinetic interaction —dose-response relationship. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1997) 44, 499–504.

Sharma A,Bell L, Drolet D, Drouin E, Gaul M, Girardin P, Goodyer P, Schreiber R. Cyclosporine (CSA) Neoral kinetics in children treated with diltiazem. J Am Soc Nephrol (1996) 7, 1923.

Wagner C,Sperschneider H, Korn A, Christians U. Influence of diltiazem on cyclosporinemetabolites in renal graft recipients treated with Sandimmun:4.4pt; font-weight:normal; color:#000000″>(See reference number ®) and Neoral:4.4pt; font-weight:normal; color:#000000″>(See reference number ®). J Am Soc Nephrol (1997) 8, 707A.

Åsberg A,Christensen H, Hartmann A, Carlson E, Molden E, Berg KJ. Pharmacokinetic interactions between microemulsion formulated cyclosporine A and diltiazem in renal transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1999) 55, 383–7.

Kumana CR,Tong MKL, Li C-S, Lauder IJ, Lee JSK, Kou M, Walley T, Haycox A, ChanTM. Diltiazem co-treatment in renal transplant patients receiving microemulsion cyclosporin. Br J Clin Pharmacol (2003) 56, 670–8.

Neumayer H-H,Wagner K. Diltiazem and economic use of cyclosporin. Lancet (1986) ii,

523.

Wagner K,Albrecht S, Neumayer H-H. Prevention of delayed graft function in cadaveric kidney transplantation by a calcium antagonist. Preliminary results of two prospective randomized trials. Transplant Proc (1986) 18, 510–15.

Wagner K,Albrecht S, Neumayer H-H. Prevention of delayed graft function by a calcium antagonist- a randomized trial in renal graft recipients on cyclosporine A. Transplant Proc (1986) 18, 1269–71.

Wagner K,Philipp T, Heinemeyer G, Brockmüller F, Roots I, Neumayer HH. Interaction ofcyclosporin and calcium antagonists. Transplant Proc (1989) 21, 1453–6.

Neumayer H-H,Kunzendorf U, Schreiber M. Protective effects of calcium antagonists in human renal transplantation. Kidney Int (1992) 41 (Suppl 36), S87–S93.

Aros CA,Ardiles LG, Schneider HO, Flores CA, Alruiz PA, Jerez VR, Mezzano SA. No gender-associated differences of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in stable renal transplant patients treated with diltiazem. Transplant Proc (2005) 37, 3364–6.

Cohen DJ,Teng S-N, Valeri A, Appel GB. Influence of oral felodipine on serum cyclosporineconcentrations in renal transplant patients. J Am Soc Nephrol (1993) 4, 929.

Yildiz A,Sever MŞ, Türkmen A, Ecder T, Türk S, Akkaya V, Ark E. Interaction between cyclosporin A and verapamil, felodipine, and isradipine. Nephron (1999) 81, 117–18.

Pedersen EB,Sørensen SS, Eiskjær H, Skovbon H, Thomsen K. Interaction between cyclosporine and felodipine in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int (1992) 41 (Suppl 36), S82– S86.

Madsen JK,Jensen JD, Jensen LW, Pedersen EB. Pharmacokinetic interaction between cyclosporine and the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist felodipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1996) 50, 203–8.

Madsen JK,Kornerup HJ, Sørensen SS, Zachariae H, Pedersen EB. Ciclosporine nephrotoxicity can be counteracted by a calcium antagonist (felodipine) in acute and short-term studies.J Am Soc Nephrol (1995) 6, 1102.

Schwitter J,DeMarco T, Globits S, Sakuma H, Klinski C, Chatterjee K, Parmley WW, Higgins CB. Influence of felodipine on left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic function in orthoptic heart transplant recipients: possible interaction with cyclosporine medication. J Heart Lung Transplant (1999) 18, 1003–13.

Endresen L,Bergan S, Holdaas H, Pran T, Sinding-Larsen B, Berg KJ. Lack of effect of thecalcium antagonist isradipine on cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients.Ther Drug Monit (1991) 13, 490–5.

Martinez F,Pirson Y, Wallemacq P, van Ypersele de Strihou C. No clinically significant interaction between ciclosporin and isradipine. Nephron (1991) 59, 658–9.

Vernillet L,Bourbigot B, Codet JP, Le Saux L, Moal MC, Morin JF. Lack of effect of isradipine on cyclosporin pharmacokinetics. Fundam Clin Pharmacol (1992) 6, 367–74.

Ahmed K,Michael B, Burke JF. Effects of isradipine on renal hemodynamics in renal transplant patients treated with cyclosporine. Clin Nephrol (1997) 48, 307–10.

Ruggenenti P,Perico N, Mosconi L, Gaspari F, Benigni A, Amuchastegui CS, Bruzzi I, Remuzzi G. Calcium channel blockers protect transplant patients from cyclosporine-induceddaily renal hypoperfusion. Kidney Int (1993) 43, 706–11.

Zanidip (Lercanidipine hydrochloride). Recordati Pharmaceuticals Ltd. UK Summary ofproduct characteristics,October 2004.

Bourbigot B,Guiserix J, Airiau J, Bressollette L, Morin JF, Cledes J. Nicardipine increasescyclosporin blood levels. Lancet (1986) i, 1447.

Cantarovich M,Hiesse C, Lockiec F, Charpentier B, Fries D. Confirmation of the interactionbetween cyclosporine and the calcium channel blocker nicardipine in renal transplant patients. Clin Nephrol (1987) 28, 190–3.

Kessler M,Renoult E, Jonon B, Vigneron B, Huu TC, Netter P. Interaction ciclosporine-nicardipine chez le transplanté rénal. Therapie (1987) 42, 273–5.

Deray G,Aupetit B, Martinez F, Baumelou A, Worcel A, Benhmida M, Legrand JC, Jacobs

C. Cyclosporin-nicardipine interaction. Am J Nephrol (1989) 9,349.

Kessler M,Netter P, Renoult E, Jonon B, Mur JM, Trechot P, Dousset B. Influence of nicardipine on renal function and plasma cyclosporin in renal transplant patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1989) 36, 637–8.

Todd P,Garioch JJ, Rademaker M, Thomson J. Nicardipine interacts with cyclosporin. Br J Dermatol (1989) 121, 820.

Bouquet S,Chapelle G, Barrier L, Boutaud P, Menu P, Courtois P Interactions ciclosporinenicardipine chez un transplanté cardiaque, adaptation posologique. J Pharm Clin (1992) 11,

59.

Mabin D,Fourquet I, Richard P, Esnault S, Islam MS, Bourbigot B. Leucoencéphalopathierégressive au cours d’un surdosage en cyclosporine A. Rev Neurol (Paris) (1993) 149, 576–8.

McNally P,Mistry N, Idle J, Walls J, Feehally J. Calcium channel blockers and cyclosporinemetabolism. Transplantation (1989) 48, 1071.

Rossi SJ,Hariharan S, Schroeder TJ, First MR. Cyclosporine dosing and blood levels in renaltransplants receiving Procardia XL. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1993) 53, 238.

Rossi SJ,Hariharan S, Schroeder TJ, First MR. Cyclosporine dosing and blood levels in renaltransplant recipients receiving Procardia XL. J Am Soc Nephrol (1992) 3, 877.

Ogborn MR,Crocker JFS, Grimm PC. Nifedipine, verapamil and cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics in children. Pediatr Nephrol (1989) 3, 314–16.

Propper DJ,Whiting PH, Power DA, Edward N, Catto GRD. The effect of nifedipine on graftfunction in renal allograft recipients treated with cyclosporin A. Clin Nephrol (1989) 32, 62–

7.

Howard RL,Shapiro JI, Babcock S, Chan L. The effect of calcium channel blockers on thecyclosporine dose requirement in renal transplant recipients. Ren Fail (1990) 12, 89–92.

Feehally J,Walls J, Mistry N, Horsburgh T, Taylor J, Veitch PS, Bell PRF. Does nifedipineameliorate cyclosporin A nephrotoxicity? BMJ (1987) 295, 310.

Morales JM,Andrés A, Alvarez C, Prieto C, Ortuño B, Ortuño T, Paternina ER, Hernandez Poblete G, Praga M, Ruilope LM, Rodicio JL. Calcium channel blockers and early cyclosporine nephrotoxicity after renal transplantation: a prospective randomized study. Transplant Proc (1990) 22, 1733–5.

McFadden JP,Pontin JE, Powles AV, Fry L, Idle JR. Cyclosporin decreases nifedipine metabolism. BMJ (1989) 299, 1224.

Thomason JM,Seymour RA, Rice N. The prevalence and severity of cyclosporin and nifedipine-induced gingival overgrowth. J Clin Periodontol (1993) 20, 37–40.

Jackson C,Babich S. Gingival hyperplasia: interaction between cyclosporin A and nifedipine? A case report. N Y State Dent J (1997) 63, 46–8.

Thomason JM,Ellis JS, Kelly PJ, Seymour RA. Nifedipine pharmacological variables as riskfactors for gingival overgrowth in organ-transplant patients. Clin Oral Investig (1997) 1, 35–

9.

Morgan JDT,Swarbrick MJ, Edwards CM, Donnelly PK. Cyclosporin, nifedipine and gingival hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study. Transpl Int (1994) 7 (Suppl 1), S320–S321.

Vescovi P,Meleti M, Manfredi M, Merigo E, Pedrazzi G. Cyclosporin-induced gingivalovergrowth: a clinical-epidemiological evaluation of 121 Italian renal transplant recipients. J Periodontol (2005) 76, 1259–63.

Fourtounas C,Kopelias I, Kiriaki D, Agroyannis B. Increased cyclosporine blood levels afternisoldipine administration in a renal transplant recipient. Transpl Int (2002) 15, 586–8.

Çopur MS,Tasdemir I, Turgan Ç, Yasavul Ü, Çaglar S. Effects of nitrendipine on blood pressure and blood ciclosporin A level in patients with posttransplant hypertension. Nephron (1989) 52, 227–30.

Dawidson I,Rooth P, Fry WR, Sandor Z, Willms C, Coorpender L, Alway C, Reisch J. Prevention of acute cyclosporine-induced renal blood flow inhibition and improved immunosuppression with verapamil. Transplantation (1989) 48, 575–80.

Lindholm A,Henricsson S. Verapamil inhibits cyclosporin metabolism. Lancet (1987) i, 1262–3.

Hampton EM,Stewart CF, Herrod HG, Valenski WR. Augmentation of in-vitro immunosuppressive effects of cyclosporin by verapamil. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1987) 41, 169.

Robson RA,Fraenkel M, Barratt LJ, Birkett DJ. Cyclosporin-verapamil interaction. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1988) 25, 402–3.

Angermann CE,Spes CH, Anthuber M, Kemkes BM, Theisen K. Verapamil increases cyclosporin-A blood trough levels in cardiac recipients. J Am Coll Cardiol (1988) 11, 206A.

Sabaté I,Griñó JM, Castelao AM, Ortolá J. Evaluation of cyclosporin-verapamil interaction,with observations on parent cyclosporin and metabolites. Clin Chem (1988) 34, 2151.

Cebeci I,Kantarci A, Firatli E, Çarin M, Tuncer Ö. The effect of verapamil on the prevalenceand severity of cyclosporine-induced gingival overgrowth in renal allograft recipients. J Periodontol (1996) 67, 1201–5.

Oppenheimer F,Alcaraz A, Mañalich M, Ricart MJ, Vilardell J, Campistol JM, Andreu J,Talbot-Wright R, Fernandez-Cruz L. Influence of the calcium blocker diltiazem on the prevention of acute renal failure after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc (1992) 24, 50–1.

Wagner K,Henkel M, Heinemeyer G, Neumayer H-H. Interaction of calcium blockers andcyclosporine. Transplant Proc (1988) 20 (Suppl 2), 561–8.

Smith CL,Hampton EM, Pederson JA, Pennington LR, Bourne DWA. Clinical and medicoeconomic impact of the cyclosporine-diltiazem interaction in renal transplant recipients.Pharmacotherapy (1994) 14, 471–81.

Iqbal S,Holland D, Toffelmire EB. Diltiazem inhibition of cyclosporin metabolism providescost effective therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1995) 57, 219.

Cooke CE. Nontherapeutic cyclosporine levels. Sustained-release diltiazem products are notthe same. Transplantation (1994) 57,1687.

Neoral (Ciclosporin). Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. UK Summary of product characteristics,December 2004.

Ciclosporin + Antimycobacterials - Drug Interactions

Ciclosporin serum levels are markedly reduced by rifampicin andtransplant rejection can rapidly develop. Rifamycin seems to interact similarly,but limited evidence suggests that rifabutin interacts to a lesser extent. Ethambutol and isoniazid do not generallyappear to interact with ciclosporin although case reports have described alterations in ciclosporin levels.

The clearance of ciclosporin in a patient with a kidney transplant doubled when isoniazid,ethambutol, pyridoxine and rifampicin 600mg daily were given. When these drugs were replaced by rifabutin 150mg and clofazimine 100mg daily ciclosporin clearance fell to about its former levels, but after about 3 weeks clearance was about 20 % greater than before antimycobacterial drugs were given (See reference number 1).

A study in 39 kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin at a mean dose of 158mg daily found that ciclosporin dose needed to be increased by between 150 to 525mg daily (an average dose of 469mg daily) when rifampicin 450 to 600mg daily was taken as part of a regimen for tuberculosis

A heart transplant patient taking ciclosporin started taking rifampicin 600mg daily with amphotericin B for treatment of an Aspergillus fumigatus infection. The dosage of ciclosporin was increased stepwise and levels climbed to a plateau before suddenly falling again. The dosage had to be increased to more than 30 mg/kg daily to achieve serum levels in range 100 to 300 nanograms/mL (See reference number 3)

A considerable number of other reports about individual patients, both adult and paediatric, confirm that a very marked fall in serum ciclosporin levels occurs, often to undetectable levels, accompanied by transplantation rejection in many instances, if rifampicin is given either intravenously or orally without raising ciclosporin dosage (See reference number 1,4-28). Ciclosporin levels become toxic within 2 weeks of stopping rifampicin unless previously adjusted ciclosporin dosage is reduced (See reference number 4,6).

Three patients needed increases in dosage of ciclosporin when given rifampicin and erythromycin, although latter normally reduces ciclosporin requirements (See reference number 19,29,30). Another patient whose ciclosporin levels had been raised by clarithromycin,, had a fall in their levels when rifampicin was added (See reference number 31).

Rifamycin sodium used to irrigate a wound has been reported to reduce serum levels of ciclosporin in a kidney transplant patient (See reference number 32)

Isoniazid(See reference number 12,22,23) and ethambutol(See reference number 22,23) do not normally interact with ciclosporin. However, there is one case report describing a patient who had a gradual rise in serum ciclosporin levels when isoniazid and ethambutol were stopped,(See reference number 14) and another which attributed a marked rise in ciclosporin levels to use of isoniazid (See reference number 33). There have been several other case reports of successful treatment of tuberculosis in heart and kidney transplant patients using isoniazid,ethambutol, pyrazinamide with ofloxacin, or streptomycin (See reference number 34,35). Consider also pyrazinamide,, and quinolones, .

Rifampicin stimulates metabolism of ciclosporin by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A(See reference number 36) resulting in a marked increase in ciclosporin clearance. In addition, rifampicin decreases ciclosporin absorption by inducing its metabolism by gut wall,(See reference number 37) thus producing a significant fall in ciclosporin levels. If rifampicin is given with erythromycin or clarithromycin, enzyme inhibitory effects of macrolides are swamped by more potent enzyme-inducing effects of rifampicin. Rifabutin has some enzyme-inducing properties but extent is quite small compared with rifampicin, and onset may be delayed (See reference number 38).

The interaction between ciclosporin and rifampicin is very well documented, well established and clinically important, as transplant rejection may occur unless ciclosporin dosage is markedly increased. In one study 27 % of patients taking rifampicin lost grafts due to rejection, and this was directly attributed to interaction (See reference number 22). The interaction develops within a few days (within a single day in one case(See reference number 20)). Monitor effects of concurrent use and increase ciclosporin dosage appropriately. Three- to fivefold dosage increases (sometimes frequency-increases from two to three times daily) have proved to be effective,with daily monitoring. Remember also to reduce ciclosporin dosage when rifampicin is stopped to reduce risk of ciclosporin toxicity.

They found that use of three antitubercular drugs (not including rifampicin) for at least 9 months reduced mortality. Other reports similarly found that regimens without rifampicin were suitable for treatment of tuberculosis in transplant patients (See reference number 23,34,35)

Another suggested alternative is to replace ciclosporin with another non-interacting immunosuppressant, such as azathioprine and low-dose prednisolone for immunosuppression, if rifampicin is needed (See reference number 13).

Other rifamycins may also be an option; limited evidence suggests that rifabutin interacts minimally. However, manufacturer(See reference number 39) and CSM in UK(See reference number 40)caution about possibility of an interaction, and close monitoring of ciclosporin levels would still be advisable. Topical rifamycin interacted like rifampicin in one patient when it was applied to a wound (See reference number 32).

Vandevelde C,Chang A, Andrews D, Riggs W, Jewesson P. Rifampin and ansamycin interactions with cyclosporine after renal transplantation. Pharmacotherapy (1991) 11, 88–9.

El-Agroudy AE,Refaie AF, Moussa OM, Ghoneim MA. Tuberculosis in Egyptian kidneytransplant recipients: study of clinical course and outcome. J Nephrol (2003) 16, 404–11.

Modry DL,Stinson EB, Oyer PE, Jamieson SW, Baldwin JC, Shumway NE. Acute rejectionand massive cyclosporine requirements in heart transplant recipients treated with rifampin.Transplantation (1985) 39, 313–14.

Langhoff E,Madsen S. Rapid metabolism of cyclosporin and prednisone in kidney transplantpatients on tuberculostatic treatment. Lancet (1983) ii, 1303.

Cassidy MJD,Van Zyl-Smit R, Pascoe MD, Swanepoel CR, Jacobson JE. Effect of rifampicin on cyclosporin A blood levels in a renal transplant recipient. Nephron (1985) 41, 207–8.

Coward RA,Raferty AT, Brown CB. Cyclosporin and antituberculous therapy. Lancet (1985) i, 1342–3.

Howard P,Bixler TJ, Gill B. Cyclosporine-rifampin drug interaction. Drug Intell Clin Pharm (1985) 19, 763–4.

Van Buren D,Wideman CA, Ried M, Gibbons S, Van Buren CT, Jarowenko M, Flechner SM, Frazier OH, Cooley DA, Kahan BD. The antagonistic effect of rifampin upon cyclosporine bioavailability. Transplant Proc (1984) 16, 1642–5.

Allen RDM,Hunnisett AG, Morris PJ. Cyclosporin and rifampicin in renal transplantation.Lancet (1985) i, 980.

Langhoff E,Madsen S. Rapid metabolism of cyclosporin and prednisone in kidney transplantpatient receiving tuberculostatic treatment. Lancet (1983) ii, 1031.

Offermann G,Keller F, Molzahn M. Low cyclosporin A blood levels and acute graft rejectionin a renal transplant recipient during rifampin treatment. Am J Nephrol (1985) 5, 385–7.

Jurewicz WA,Gunson BK, Ismail T, Angrisani L, McMaster P. Cyclosporin and antituberculous therapy. Lancet (1985) i, 1343.

Daniels NJ,Dover JS, Schachter RK. Interaction between cyclosporin and rifampicin. Lancet (1984) ii, 639.

Leimenstoll G,Schlegelberger T, Fulde R, Niedermayer W. Interaktion von Ciclosporin undEthambutol-Isoniazid. Dtsch Med Wochenschr (1988) 113, 514–15.

Prado A,Ramirez M, Aguirre EC, Martin RS, Zucchini A. Interaccion entre ciclosporina yrifampicina en un caso de transplante renal. Medicina (B Aires) (1987) 47, 521–4.

Al-Sulaiman MH,Dhar JM, Al-Khader AA. Successful use of rifampicin in the treatment oftuberculosis in renal transplant patients immunosuppressed with cyclosporine. Transplantation (1990) 50, 597–8.

Sánchez DM,Rincón LC, Asensio JM, Serna AB. Interacción entre ciclosporina y rifampicina. Rev Clin Esp (1988) 183, 217.

Peschke B,Ernst W, Gossmann J, Kachel HG, Schoeppe W, Scheuermann EH. Antituberculous drugs in kidney transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine. Transplantation (1993)56, 236–8.

Zylber-Katz E. Multiple drug interactions with cyclosporine in a heart transplant patient. Ann Pharmacother (1995) 29,127–31. Correction. ibid. 790.

Wandel C,Böhrer H, Böcker R. Rifampicin and cyclosporine dosing in heart transplant patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth (1995) 9, 621–2.

Capone D,Aiello C, Santoro GA, Gentile A, Stanziale P, D’Alessandro R, Imperatore P, Basile V. Drug interaction between cyclosporine and two antimicrobial agents, josamycin andrifampicin, in organ-transplanted patients. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res (1996) 16, 73–6.

Aguado JM,Herrero JA, Gavaldá J, Torre-Cisneros J, Blanes M, Rufí G, Moreno A, GurguíA, Hayek M, Lumbreras C and the Spanish Transplantation Infection Study Group, GESITRA. Clinical presentation and outcome of tuberculosis in kidney, liver, and heart transplantrecipients in Spain. Transplantation (1997) 63, 1276–86.

Muñoz P,Palomo J, Muños R, Rodríguez-Creixéms M, Pelaez T, Bouza E. Tuberculosis inheart transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis (1995) 21, 398–402.

Freitag VL,Skifton RD, Lake KD. Effect of short-term rifampin on stable cyclosporine concentration. Ann Pharmacother (1999) 33, 871–2.

Almeida RV,Carvalho JGR, Mulinari A, Hauck P. Tuberculosis in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol (1997) 8, 709A.

Kim YH,Yoon YR, Kim YW, Shin JG, Cha IJ. Effects of rifampin on cyclosporine disposition in kidney recipients with tuberculosis. Transplant Proc (1998) 30, 3570–2.

Zelunka EJ. Intravenous cyclosporine-rifampin interaction in a pediatric bone marrow transplant recipient. Pharmacotherapy (2002) 22,387–90.

Koselj M,Bren A, Kandus A, Kovac D. Drug interactions between cyclosporine and rifampicin, erythromycin, and azoles in kidney recipients with opportunistic infections. Transplant Proc (1994) 26, 2823–4.

Hooper TL,Gould FK, Swinburne CR, Featherstone G, Odom NJ, Corris PA, Freeman R,McGregor CGA. Ciprofloxacin: a preferred treatment for legionella infections in patients receiving cyclosporin A. J Antimicrob Chemother (1988) 22, 952–3.

Soto J,Sacristan JA, Alsar MJ. Effect of the simultaneous administration of rifampicin anderythromycin on the metabolism of cyclosporine. Clin Transplant (1992) 6, 312–14.

Plemmons RM,McAllister CK, Garces MC, Ward RL. Osteomyelitis due to Mycobacterium haemophilum in a cardiac transplant patient: case report and analysis of interactions amongclarithromycin, rifampin and cyclosporine. Clin Infect Dis (1997) 24, 995–7.

Renoult E,Hubert J, Trechot Ph, Hestin D, Kessler M, L’Hermite J. Effect of topical rifamycin SV treatment on cyclosporin A blood levels in a renal transplant patient. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1991) 40, 433–4.

Diaz Couselo FA,Porato F, Turin M, Etchegoyen FP, Diez RA. Interacciones de la ciclosporina en transplantados renales. Medicina (B Aires) (1992) 52, 296–302.

Jastrzębski D,Zaklicyński M, Kozielski J, Siola M, Dworniczak S, Wojdyla A, Zembala M.Possibility to treat lung tuberculosis without using rifampicin in heart transplant recipients-two case reports. Ann Transplant (2003) 8, 42–4.

Vachharajani TJ,Oza UG, Phadke AG, Kirpalani AL. Tuberculosis in renal transplant recipients: rifampicin sparing treatment protocol. Int Urol Nephrol (2002) 34, 551–3.

Pichard L,Fabre JM, Domergue J, Fabre G, Saint-Aubert B, Mourad G, Maurel P. Molecularmechanism of cyclosporine A drug interactions: inducers and inhibitors of cytochrome P450screening in primary cultures of human hepatocytes. Transplant Proc (1991) 23, 978–9.

Hebert MF,Roberts JP, Prueksaritanont T, Benet LZ. Bioavailability of cyclosporine withconcomitant rifampin administration is markedly less than predicted by hepatic enzyme induction. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1992) 52, 453–7.

Perucca E,Grimaldi R, Frigo GM, Sardi A, Möning H, Ohnhaus EE. Comparative effects ofrifabutin and rifampicin on hepatic microsomal enzyme activity in normal subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1988) 34, 595–9.

Mycobutin (Rifabutin). Pharmacia Ltd. UK Summary of product characteristics,October2006.

Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Medicines Control Agency. Revised indication anddrug interactions of rifabutin. Current Problems (1997) 23,14.

Ciclosporin + Bosentan - Drug Interactions

Bosentan modestly decreases ciclosporin levels,and ciclosporinincreases bosentan levels. The manufacturer of bosentan contraindicates combination, because of possible increasedrisk of liver toxicity.

Clinical evidence,mechanism, importance and management

In a study designed to assess effects of bosentan on ciclosporin renal toxicity, 7 healthy subjects were given bosentan 500mg and ciclosporin 300 mg, both twice daily, for 7 days. Bosentan did maintain renal plasma flow,which is markedly decreased by ciclosporin. However, bosentan was calculated to have reduced AUC of ciclosporin by about 50%. In addition, bosentan had no effect on ciclosporin-induced rise in blood pressure, and headache, nausea, and vomiting were a problem with combination. Moreover, steady-state AUC of bosentan was raised 1.7-fold when compared with AUC of a single dose of bosentan (See reference number 1). It should be noted that bosentan induces its own metabolism,and after 7 days, plasma levels are about 50 to 65 % of those seen after a single dose (See reference number 2). Therefore, effect of ciclosporin on bosentan AUC may be twice those described in this study (i.e. up to a fourfold increase in AUC of bosentan). The manufacturers of bosentan say that when bosentan is given with ciclosporin its plasma levels were markedly raised (30-fold after a single dose and three- to fourfold at steady state). They also list ciclosporin as an example of a drug, like bosentan, that inhibits bile salt export pump, and is therefore expected to increase risk of liver toxicity when used with bosentan. They therefore contraindicate combination (See reference number 2). Further study is needed, as some consider combination to have clinical potential.

The combination of tacrolimus or sirolimus with bosentan has not been studied but based on information available for ciclosporin, manufacturers of bosentan advise against concurrent use, but if it is required, close monitoring is recommended (See reference number 2).

Binet I,Wallnöfer A, Weber C, Jones R, Thiel G. Renal hemodynamics and pharmacokineticsof bosentan with and without cyclosporine A. Kidney Int (2000) 57, 224–31.

Tracleer (Bosentan monohydrate). Actelion Pharmaceuticals UK. UK Summary of productcharacteristics,October 2006.

Ciclosporin + Antibacterials; Quinolones - Drug Interactions

Ciclosporin serum levels are normally unchanged by use ofciprofloxacin, but increased serum levels and nephrotoxicity mayoccur in a small number of patients. There is also some evidencethat immunosuppressant effects of ciclosporin are reduced byciprofloxacin. One study,and two case reports describe rises inciclosporin levels in patients given norfloxacin, but another studyfound no change. Similar results have been found with levofloxacin. No significant interaction appears to occur betweenciclosporin and enoxacin,ofloxacin, pefloxacin and trovafloxacin.

A single-dose study in 10 healthy subjects found that after taking ciprofloxacin 500mg twice daily for 7 days pharmacokinetics of oral ciclosporin 5 mg/kg were unchanged (See reference number 1). Five other studies confirm lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction in:

There were no changes in serum ciclosporin levels or evidence of nephrotoxicity. In contrast,a handful of cases of nephrotoxicity have been reported, with

three cases of increased ciclosporin levels (See reference number 7,8). A heart transplant patient developed acute renal failure within 4 days of being given ciprofloxacin 750mg every 8 hrs (See reference number 9). Another patient who had undergone a kidney transplant developed reversible nephrotoxicity (See reference number 10). Decreased renal function in a heart-lung transplant patient has been described in another report (See reference number 7). This patient and another also had increased ciclosporin blood levels when given ciprofloxacin 500mg three times daily (See reference number 7). Acute interstitial nephritis in a cardiac transplant patient has also been reported (See reference number 11-13). A patient taking ciclosporin for red cell aplasia had an increase in ciclosporin levels from 120 nanograms/mL to 297 nanograms/mL,requiring a dose reduction from 250mg to 200mg daily, when intravenous ciprofloxacin 200mg two or three times daily [exact dose unclear] was started. A ciclosporin dose increase back to 250mg daily was required when ciprofloxacin course was finished (See reference number 8).

A case-control study in 42 kidney transplant patients suggested that proportion of cases experiencing at least one episode of biopsy-proved rejection within 1 to 3 months of receiving a transplant were significantly greater in those who had taken ciprofloxacin (45%) than in those who had not (19%). There was also a marked increase in incidence of rejection associated with ciprofloxacin use (29%) compared with controls (2%) (See reference number 14)

A single-dose study in 12 healthy subjects found that levofloxacin 500mg had no effect on pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin oral solution (Sandimmune) (See reference number 16). A case report in a patient taking oral ciclosporin 250mg daily (as emulsion formulation) found no change in ciclosporin levels when he was given intravenous levofloxacin 500mg daily for 9 days (See reference number 8)

In contrast, in a study in 5 kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin (microemulsion formulation) maximum ciclosporin blood concentration was increased by 23 % when levofloxacin 500mg twice daily for 5 days was taken for a urinary-tract infection. The authors concluded that this interaction may be clinically significant, and warned about extrapolating results from single-dose studies in healthy subjects (as above) to patients with transplants (See reference number 17).

Six renal transplant patients given norfloxacin 400mg twice daily for 3 to 23 days for urinary tract infections,(See reference number 18) and 4 heart transplant patients given norfloxacin 400mg for 7 to 140 days had no changes in their serum ciclosporin levels (See reference number 5). However,two reports describe rises, one marked, in serum ciclosporin levels in a heart transplant patient and a kidney transplant patient given norfloxacin (See reference number 19). A comparative study in 5 children (mean age,8 years) found that while receiving norfloxacin 5 to 10 mg/kg daily their daily dose of ciclosporin was 4.5 mg/kg daily compared with a control group of 6 children not taking norfloxacin who needed 7.4 mg/kg daily (See reference number 20).

A study in kidney transplant patients taking corticosteroids, azathioprine and ciclosporin found that pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin were not significantly changed by pefloxacin 400mg twice daily for 4 days (See reference number 22).

A placebo-controlled crossover study in 7 stable kidney transplant patients treated with ciclosporin (Sandimmune) found that pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin were not significantly altered by trovafloxacin 200mg daily for 7 days (See reference number 23)

The interaction between ciclosporin and norfloxacin probably occurs because norfloxacin inhibits cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, resulting in a reduction in ciclosporin metabolism (See reference number 20). The interaction between ciclosporin and ciprofloxacin may possibly be due to some antagonism by ciprofloxacin of ciclosporin-dependent inhibition of interleukin-2, which thereby opposes its immunosuppressant action (See reference number 14).

Information seems to be limited to these reports. They indicate that in children and adults dosage of ciclosporin will probably need to be reduced in presence of norfloxacin. Information with levofloxacin is currently limited,but a modest increase in ciclosporin levels may occur, and increased monitoring seems advisable.

There is also some evidence that immunosuppressant effects of ciclosporin may be reduced (See reference number 14)

There seem to be no reports of problems with enoxacin,ofloxacin, pefloxacin or trovafloxacin.

Tan KKC,Trull AK, Shawket S. Co-administration of ciprofloxacin and cyclosporin: lack ofevidence for a pharmacokinetic interaction. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1989) 28, 185–7.

Lang J,Finaz de Villaine J, Garraffo R, Touraine J-L. Cyclosporine (cyclosporin A) pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving ciprofloxacin. Am J Med (1989) 87 (Suppl 5A), 82S–85S.

Van Buren DH,Koestner J, Adedoyin A, McCune T, MacDonell R, Johnson HK, Carroll J,Nylander W, Richie RE. Effect of ciprofloxacin on cyclosporine pharmacokinetics. Transplantation (1990) 50, 888–9.

Krüger HU,Schuler U, Proksch B, Göbel M, Ehninger G. Investigation of potential interaction of ciprofloxacin with cyclosporine in bone marrow transplant recipients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (1990) 34, 1048–52.

Robinson JA,Venezio FR, Costanzo-Nordin MR, Pifarre R, O’Keefe PJ. Patients receivingquinolones and cyclosporine after heart transplantation. J Heart Transplant (1990) 9, 30–1.

Hooper TL,Gould FK, Swinburn CR, Featherstone G, Odom NJ, Corris PA, Freeman R, Mc-Gregor CGA. Ciprofloxacin: a preferred treatment for legionella infections in patients receiving cyclosporin A. J Antimicrob Chemother (1988) 22, 952–3.

Nasir M,Rotellar C, Hand M, Kulczycki L, Alijani MR, Winchester JF. Interaction betweenciclosporin and ciprofloxacin. Nephron (1991) 57, 245–6.

Borrás-Blasco J,Conesa-García V, Navarro-Ruiz A, Marín-Jiménez F, González-DelgadoM, Gomez-Corrons A. Ciprofloxacin, but not levofloxacin, affects cyclosporine blood levelsin a patient with pure red blood cell aplasia. Am J Med Sci (2005) 330, 144–6.

Avent CK,Krinsky JK, Kirklin JK, Bourge RC, Figg WD. Synergistic nephrotoxicity due tociprofloxacin and cyclosporine. Am J Med (1988) 85, 452–3.

Elston RA,Taylor J. Possible interaction of ciprofloxacin with cyclosporin A. J Antimicrob Chemother (1988) 21, 679–80.

Rosado LJ,Siskind MS, Copeland JG. Acute interstitial nephritis in a cardiac transplant patient receiving ciprofloxacin. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (1994) 107, 1364.

Bourge RC. Invited letter concerning: acute interstitial nephritis in a cardiac transplant recipients receiving ciprofloxacin. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (1994) 107,1364–5.

Rosado LJ,Siskind MS, Nolan PE, Copeland JG. Invited letter concerning: acute interstitialnephritis in a cardiac transplant recipients receiving ciprofloxacin. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (1994) 107, 1365–6.

Wrishko RE,Levine M, Primmett DRN, Kim S, Partovi N, Lewis S, Landsberg D, KeownPA. Investigation of a possible interaction between ciprofloxacin and cyclosporine in renaltransplant patients. Transplantation (1997) 64, 996–999.

Ryerson BA,Toothaker RD, Posvar EL, Sedman AJ, Koup JR. Effect of enoxacin on cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects. Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother (1991) 31, 198.

Doose DR,Walker SA, Chien SC, Williams RR, Nayak RK. Levofloxacin does not alter cyclosporine disposition. J Clin Pharmacol (1998) 38, 90–3.

Federico S,Carrano R, Capone D, Gentile A, Palmiero G, Basile V. Pharmacokinetic interaction between levofloxacin and ciclosporin or tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients.Clin Pharmacokinet (2006) 45, 169–75.

Jadoul M,Pirson Y, van Ypersele de Strihou C. Norfloxacin and cyclosporine-a safe combination. Transplantation (1989) 47, 747–8.

Thomson DJ,Menkis AH, McKenzie FN. Norfloxacin-cyclosporine interaction. Transplantation (1988) 46, 312–13.

McLellan RA,Drobitch RK, McLellan DH, Acott PD, Crocker JFS, Renton KW. Norfloxacin interferes with cyclosporine disposition in pediatric patients undergoing renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1995) 58, 322–7.

Vogt P,Schorn T, Frei U. Ofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection in renal transplant recipients. Infection (1988) 16, 175–8.

Lang J,Finaz de Villaine J, Guemei A, Touraine JL, Faucon C. Absence of pharmacokineticinteraction between pefloxacin and cyclosporin A in patients with renal transplants. Rev Infect Dis (1989) 11 (Suppl 5), S1094.

Johnson HJ,Swan SK, Heim-Duthoy KL, Pelletier SM, Teng R, Vincent J. The effect of trovafloxacin on steady-state pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine (CSA) in stable renal transplantpatients. Pharm Res (1997) 14 (11 Suppl), S-509.

Ciclosporin + ACE inhibitors and Angiotensin II receptor antagonists - Drug Interactions

Two kidney transplant patients on ciclosporin developed acute renal failure 10 to 42 days after starting to take enalapril 5 to 10mg twice daily. Recovery was complete when enalapril was stopped in one of patients, and when both enalapril and ciclosporin were stopped in other. The latter patient had no problems when ciclosporin was restarted. Both recovered renal function after 10 to 30 days. Neither had any previous evidence of renal artery stenosis or chronic rejection,which are conditions known to predispose to renal failure during ACE inhibitor treatment. Two other patients appeared to tolerate concurrent use well (See reference number 1). Two further kidney transplant patients developed acute renal failure when given enalapril. Neither had renal arterial stenosis or acute rejection (See reference number 2). The manufacturer briefly mentions that transient oliguria was seen in a kidney transplant patient given ciclosporin and captopril (See reference number 3).

0.2 mmol/L). Potassium levels were not increased above 5.5 mmol/L in any of patients studied. Uric acid levels were also increased by enalapril but decreased by losartan,although this was not statistically significant. No changes in ciclosporin trough levels were seen during study and serum creatinine remained stable (See reference number 4). Another study in kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin with either enalapril (33 patients) or enalapril plus amlodipine (32 patients) found that potassium and serum creatinine levels did not increase in enalapril/amlodipine group whereas they increased by 0.2 mmol/L and 9 micromol/L, respectively, in group who received enalapril alone. Ciclosporin levels remained stable in all patients (See reference number 5).

A study in kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin with losartan found that serum creatinine was only slightly and non-significantly increased in 5 patients

5 mmol/L) developed in 4 patients but potassium had fallen to below

5.5 mmol/L by week 12 in all patients. Ciclosporin levels were remained stable during study and no significant dose changes were made, although one patient was withdrawn from study due to ciclosporin toxicity which authors state was not related to use of losartan (See reference number 6). Another study in 14 kidney transplant patients taking ciclosporin with losartan 50 to 100mg daily for 8 weeks found serum creatinine,potassium and ciclosporin levels were unaffected (See reference number 7). Another study in 41 kidney transplant patients with proteinuria taking ciclosporin found that addition of candesartan 4 to 12mg daily had no significant effects on creatinine clearance or ciclosporin levels (See reference number 8).

Not understood. One suggestion is that ciclosporin reduces renal blood flow and reduces perfusion through glomerulus, which is worsened when angiotensin II is inhibited by ACE inhibitor (See reference number 1). One study suggested that larger increase in potassium levels may be related to changes in aldosterone levels seen with enalapril (See reference number 4).

There have been few specific case reports of renal failure and hyperkalaemia with ciclosporin and ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Data from efficacy studies above suggest that incidence of renal failure and hyperkalaemia is low, nevertheless care and good monitoring are needed if ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists and ciclosporin are used concurrently. Also note that manufacturers of ciclosporin warn about possible risk of hyperkalaemia with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists with ciclosporin as these drugs may raise potassium levels (See reference number 9). Monitor potassium levels more closely in initial weeks of concurrent use, bearing in mind that an increase in potassium levels may be due to worsening renal function as well as these drugs.

Murray BM,Venuto RC, Kohli R, Cunningham EE. Enalapril-associated renal failure in renaltransplants: possible role of cyclosporine. Am J Kidney Dis (1990) 16, 66–9.

Garcia TM,da Costa JA, Costa RS, Ferraz AS. Acute tubular renal necrosis in kidney transplant patients treated with enalapril. Ren Fail (1994) 16, 419–23.

Cockburn I. Cyclosporine A: a clinical evaluation of drug interactions. Transplant Proc (1986)18 (Suppl 5),50–5.

Schmidt A,Gruber U, Böhmig G, Köller E, Mayer G. The effect of ACE inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor antagonist therapy on serum uric acid levels and potassium homeostasis inhypertensive renal transplant recipients treated with CsA. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2001) 16, 1034–7.

Halimi JM,Giraudeau B, Buchler M, Al-Najjar A, Etienne I, Laouad I, Bruyere F, Lebranchu

Y. Enalapril/amlodipine combination in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients: a prospective randomized trial. Clin Transplant (2007) 21,277–84.

6. del Castillo D,Campistol JM, Guirado L, Capdevilla L, Martínez JG, Pereira P, Bravo J, Pérez

R. Efficacy and safety of losartan in the treatment of hypertension in renal transplant patients.Kidney Int (1998) 54,(Suppl 68) S135–S139.

Tylicki L,Biedunkiewicz B, Chamienia A, Wojnarowski K, Zdrojewski Z, Rutkowski B. Randomized placebo-controlled study on the effects of losartan and carvedilol on albuminuria inrenal transplant recipients. Transplantation (2006) 81, 52–6.

Omoto K,Tanabe K, Tokumoto T, Shimmura H, Ishida H, Toma H. Use of candesartan cilexetil decreases proteinuria in renal transplant patients with chronic allograft dysfunction. Transplantation (2003) 76, 1170–4.

Neoral (Ciclosporin). Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. UK Summary of product characteristics,December 2004.

Hormonal contraceptives + Modafinil - Drug Interactions

Modafinil slightly reduces levels of ethinylestradiol given aspart of a combined oral contraceptive

Clinical evidence,mechanism, importance and management

In 16 healthy women taking a combined oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol/norgestimate), modafinil 200mg daily for 7 days followed by 400mg daily for 21 days decreased AUC and maximum plasma levels of ethinylestradiol by 18 % and 11%, respectively. Increases in plasma FSH and LH were not significant (See reference number 1). Modafinil is an inducer of cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, which is partially responsible for metabolism of ethinylestradiol. These small changes are lower than those seen with other enzyme inducers known to reduce reliability of combined oral contraceptives (e.g. see phenytoin’,). However,it cannot be ruled out that they would be sufficient to cause failure of combined oral contraceptives in very rare cases. The UK manufacturer recommends that additional or alternative methods of contraception should be used during and for up to 2 cycles after stopping modafinil (See reference number 2). The US manufacturer gives similar guidance but advises that additional or alternative contraceptive methods need only be continued for one month after stopping modafinil (See reference number 3). Note that this advice applies to other forms of hormonal contraception including implants and patches (See reference number 3,4). The Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (FFPRHC) Clinical Effectiveness Unit has issued guidance on use of liver enzyme inducers with hormonal contraceptives,(See reference number 4)see ‘Hormonal contraceptives + Antiepileptics; Barbiturates or Phenytoin, for further information.

1. Robertson P,Hellriegel ET, Arora S, Nelson M. Effect of modafinil on the pharmacokineticsof ethinyl estradiol and triazolam in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther (2002) 71, 46–

56.

Provigil (Modafinil). Cephalon Ltd. UK Summary of product characteristics,July 2007.

Provigil (Modafinil). Cephalon,Inc. US Prescribing information, December 2004.

Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit.FFPRHC Guidance: Drug interactions with hormonal contraception. April 2005. Available at:http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/admin/uploads/DrugInteractionsFinal.pdf (accessed 23/08/07).

Hormonal contraceptives + Antiepileptics; Vigabatrin - Drug Interactions

Vigabatrin appears not to alter pharmacokinetics of ethinyloestradiol or levonorgestrel given as a combined oral contraceptive

Clinical evidence,mechanism, importance and management

Vigabatrin 3 g daily had no statistically significant effect on pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in 13 healthy women given a single dose of a combined oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel 30/150 micrograms); although 2 of women had a 39 % and a 50 % fall in AUC of ethinylestradiol

This study would seem to confirm lack of reports of an interaction between oral contraceptives and vigabatrin, but authors of report introduce a small note of caution because it is not clear whether reduced ethinylestradiol AUCs seen in two of women resulted from an interaction or were simply normal individual variations (See reference number 1). The Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (FFPRHC) Clinical Effectiveness Unit guidelines on management of hormonal contraceptives and drug interactions state that vigabatrin does not induce liver enzymes and causes no reduction in ethinylestradiol or progestogens (See reference number 2). No special precautions are recommended.

Bartoli A,Gatti G, Cipolla G, Barzaghi N, Veliz G, Fattore C, Mumford J, Perucca E. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the effect of vigabatrin on in vivo parameters of hepaticmicrosomal enzyme induction and on the kinetics of steroid oral contraceptives in healthy female volunteers. Epilepsia (1997) 38, 702–7.

Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit.FFPRHC Guidance: Drug interactions with hormonal contraception. April 2005. Available at:http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/admin/uploads/DrugInteractionsFinal.pdf (accessed 23/08/07).

Hormonal contraceptives + Antiepileptics; Gabapentin - Drug Interactions

In a controlled study, gabapentin did not alter levels of ethinylestradiol or norethisterone.

Clinical evidence,mechanism, importance and management

Gabapentin 400mg every 8 hrs for 7 days had no effect on AUC of ethinylestradiol or norethisterone in 13 healthy women taking a combined oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol/norethisterone 50 micrograms/2.5 mg). Ovulation suppression was not assessed (See reference number 1). The Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (FFPRHC) Clinical Effectiveness Unit guidelines on management of hormonal contraceptives and drug interactions state that gabapentin does not induce liver enzymes responsible for metabolism of contraceptive steroids and causes no reduction in ethinylestradiol or progestogens (See reference number 2). Thus,no special contraceptive precautions appear to be required during concurrent use.

Eldon MA,Underwood BA, Randinitis EJ, Sedman AJ. Gabapentin does not interact with acontraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol. Neurology (1998) 50, 1146–8.

Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit.FFPRHC Guidance: Drug interactions with hormonal contraception. April 2005. Available at:http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/admin/uploads/DrugInteractionsFinal.pdf (accessed 23/08/07).

Hormonal contraceptives + Antibacterials; Cephalosporins - Drug Interactions

A few anecdotal cases of combined oral contraceptive failure havebeen reported with cefalexin,cefalexin with clindamycin, and unspecified cephalosporins. The interaction (if such it is) appears tobe very rare indeed.

Two pregnancies were attributed to use of cephalosporins (unspecified) and an oral contraceptive (unspecified) in adverse reactions register of CSM in UK for years 1968 to 1984 (61 cases were attributed to other antibacterials) (See reference number 1). One case of contraceptive failure has been attributed to cefalexin,(See reference number 2) and one to cefalexin used with clindamycin (See reference number 3). In a case-control study,356 women were who had received oral contraceptives and antibacterials (said to be cephalosporins, penicillins, tetracyclines) were identified over a 5-year period in 3 dermatological practices. The contraceptive failure rate in these women (1.6% per year; 2 pregnancies occurred in women taking a cephalosporin and 3 in women taking minocycline) was indistinguishable from failure rate seen in control patients taking oral contraceptives and no antibacterials (1% per year) (See reference number 4).

Suppression of intestinal bacteria, which results in reduced enterohepatic recirculation of ethinylestradiol and a fall in serum levels, is suggested explanation for any interaction (see Hormonal contraceptives and sex hormones, ). Note that broad-spectrum antibacterials do not affect progestogens,as their metabolites are inactive (See reference number 5).

The interaction between combined hormonal contraceptives and cephalosporins that are summarised here are all that have been identified in literature. These interactions are not adequately established and whole issue remains very controversial (See reference number 5). Bearing in mind extremely wide use of both groups of drugs, any increased incidence of contraceptive failure above that normally seen is clearly very low indeed. On other hand, personal and ethical consequences of an unwanted pregnancy can be very serious. For this reason, Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (FFPRHC) Clinical Effectiveness Unit recommends that patients taking antibacterials that do not induce liver enzymes should use a second form of non-hormonal contraception, such as condoms, while taking a short course of less than 3 weeks of a cephalosporin, and also for 7 days after antibiotic has been stopped. This advice applies to both oral and patch form of combined contraceptive (See reference number 5). For further comment and advice see also Hormonal contraceptives + Antibacterials; Penicillins interaction.

Note that antibacterials that do not induce liver enzymes do not affect reliability of progestogen-only contraceptives, see Progestogenonly contraceptives + Antibacterials, or progestogen-only emergency hormonal contraceptive, see ‘Emergency hormonal contraceptives + Antibacterials.

Back DJ,Grimmer SFM, Orme ML’E, Proudlove C, Mann RD, Breckenridge AM. Evaluationof Committee on Safety of Medicines yellow card reports on oral contraceptive-drug interactions with anticonvulsants and antibiotics. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1988) 25, 527–32.

DeSano EA,Hurley SC. Possible interactions of antihistamines and antibiotics with oral contraceptive effectiveness. Fertil Steril (1982) 37, 853–4.

Back DJ,Breckenridge AM, Crawford FE, MacIver M, Orme L’E, Rowe PH. Interindividualvariation and drug interactions with hormonal steroids. Drugs (1981) 21, 46.

Helms SE,Bredle DL, Zajic J, Jarjoura D, Brodell RT, Krishnarao I. Oral contraceptive failurerates and oral antibiotics. J Am Acad Dermatol (1997) 36, 705–10.

Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit.FFPRHC Guidance: Drug interactions with hormonal contraception. April 2005. Available at:http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/admin/uploads/DrugInteractionsFinal.pdf (accessed 23/08/07).

Co-cyprindiol (Cyproterone/Ethinylestradiol) + Miscellaneous - Drug Interactions

Co-cyprindiol is expected to interact with enzyme inducers in asimilar manner to combined oral contraceptives, and therefore risk of contraceptive failure is increased. Like combinedoral contraceptives,there may be rare cases of contraceptive failure with broad-spectrum antibacterials. There is some evidencethat co-cyprindiol also interacts with minocycline to increase facial pigmentation.

Clinical evidence,mechanism, importance and management

Co-cyprindiol is a mixture of anti-androgenic progestogen, cyproterone acetate 2 mg, with ethinylestradiol 35 micrograms. It is used for treatment of acne and moderately severe hirsutism in women who may also wish to use it as an oral contraceptive, and its contraceptive efficacy is expected to be reduced by same hepatic enzyme inducers (see table 1 below’,) that interact with conventional combined oral contraceptives (See reference number 1). The precautions described in this section for combined hormonal contraceptives with various drugs listed in table 1 below,, should therefore be followed, see ‘Hormonal contraceptives + Antiepileptics; Barbiturates or Phenytoin.

Similarly, it is anticipated that use of broad-spectrum antibacterials that do not induce liver enzymes may rarely reduce contraceptive efficacy of co-cyprindiol and Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care (FFPRHC) guidance under Hormonal contraceptives + Antibacterials; Penicillins interaction, should be followed. Usually these precautions (additional barrier methods) are considered unnecessary after 3 weeks of concurrent use. However, manufacturer of co-cyprindiol says that when tetracyclines are being taken it is advisable to use additional non-hormonal methods of contraception (except rhythm or temperature methods) since an extremely high degree of contraceptive protection must be provided with co-cyprindiol due to theoretical risk of cyproterone causing feminization of a male foetus. However, they do also note that oral tetracyclines have not actually been shown to reduce contraceptive efficacy of co-cyprindiol. In addition co-cyprindiol may also possibly interact with minocycline to accentuate facial pigmentation (see Tetracyclines; Minocycline + Ethinylestradiol interaction).

The manufacturer also points out that combined oral contraceptives (and presumably combined hormonal contraceptive patch) must not be taken with co-cyprindiol (See reference number 1). To do this would be analogous to doubling ethinylestradiol dose with consequent increased risk of adverse effects. In addition, some of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives have weak androgenic effects, which could oppose benefits of cyproterone.

1. Dianette (Cyproterone/ethinylestradiol). Schering Health Care Ltd. UK Summary of productcharacteristics,June 2007.

Table 1 Enzyme-inducing drugs shown to reduce the efficacy and/or increase the metabolism of hormonal contraceptives
Group Drugs
Antibacterials Rifabutin, Rifampicin (Rifampin)
Antiepileptics Barbiturates (e.g. phenobarbital, primidone), Carbamazepine, Phenytoin, Topiramate
Antifungals Griseofulvin
Antivirals Nevirapine, Protease inhibitors (e.g. nelfinavir, ritonavir)
Other drugs Aprepitant, Modafinil, St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)
Table 2 Enzyme-inducing drugs shown to reduce the efficacy and/or increase the metabolism of hormonal contraceptives
Group Drugs
Antibacterials Rifabutin, Rifampicin (Rifampin)
Antiepileptics Barbiturates (e.g. phenobarbital, primidone), Carbamazepine, Phenytoin, Topiramate
Antifungals Griseofulvin
Antivirals Nevirapine, Protease inhibitors (e.g. nelfinavir, ritonavir)
Other drugs Aprepitant, Modafinil, St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)