This two‐sequence, three‐period crossover study is the first pharmacokinetic (PK) study to compare all three innovator formulations of tacrolimus (twice‐daily immediate‐release tacrolimus capsules [IR‐Tac]; once‐daily extended‐release tacrolimus capsules [ER‐Tac]; novel once‐daily tacrolimus tablets [LCPT]). Stable renal transplant patients were dosed with each drug for 7 days, and blood samples were obtained over 24 h. Thirty subjects were included in the PK analysis set. A conversion factor of 1:1:0.80 for IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac:LCPT was used; no dose adjustments were permitted during the study. The median (interquartile range) total daily dose was 6.0 (4.0–8.0) mg for IR‐Tac and ER‐Tac and 4.8 (3.3–6.3) for LCPT. Significantly higher exposure on a per milligram basis, lower intraday fluctuation and prolonged time (Tmax) to peak concentration (Cmax) were found for LCPT versus IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac. ER‐Tac showed no differences versus IR‐Tac in exposure, Cmax, Tmax or fluctuation. The observed exposure of IR‐Tac was used to normalize exposure for LCPT and ER‐Tac, resulting in the following recommended total daily dose conversion rates: IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac, +8%; IR‐Tac:LCPT, −30%; ER‐Tac:LCPT, −36%. After exposure normalization, Cmax was ~17% lower for LCPT than for IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac; Cmin was ~6% lower for LCPT compared with IR‐Tac and 3% higher compared with ER‐Tac.

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with study number NCT01962922.

Tremor is a common side effect of tacrolimus correlated with peak‐dose drug concentration. LCPT, a novel, once‐daily, extended‐release formulation of tacrolimus, has a reduced C max with comparable AUC exposure, requiring a ~30% dose reduction vs. immediate‐release tacrolimus. In this phase 3b study, kidney transplant recipients (KTR) on a stable dose of tacrolimus and with a reported clinically significant tremor were offered a switch to LCPT. Tremor pre‐ and seven d post‐conversion was evaluated by independent, blinded movement disorder neurologists using the Fahn–Tolosa–Marin (FTM) scale and by an accelerometry device; patients completed the QUEST (quality of life in essential tremor) and the Patient Global Impression of Change. There were 38 patients in the mITT population. A statistically and clinically significant improvement in tremor (FTM score, amplitude as measured by the accelerometry device and QOL [p‐values < 0.05]) resulted post‐conversion. Change in QUEST was significantly (p = 0.006) correlated (R = 0.44) with change in FTM; 78.9% of patients reported an improvement after switching to LCPT (p < 0.0005). To our knowledge this is the first trial in KTR that utilizes a sophisticated and reproducible measurement of tremor. Results suggest LCPT is associated with clinically meaningful improvement of hand tremor and may be an alternative management approach in lieu of further dose reduction of immediate‐release tacrolimus for patients experiencing tremor.

No abstract

The National Cancer Institute of Bari (Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, IRCCS) has been involved since the conception of the project of the Italian Ministry for Health aimed to validate the applicability of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) accreditation and designation (A&D) model to the Network of Italian Cancer Centers, IRCCS, of Alleanza Contro il Cancro. The self-assessment phase of the Institute started in September 2013 and ended in June 2014. All documents and tools were transferred to the OECI A&D Board in June 2014 and a 2-day peer review visit was conducted in October 2014 by an international qualified audit team. The Institute received its final designation and certification in June 2015. The OECI A&D Board, in its final report, came to the conclusion that Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari has a strong research component with some essential elements of comprehensive cancer care still under development; the lack of a system for using outcome data for the strategic management approach to decision-making and missing a regular internal audit system eventually helping further quality improvement were reported as examples of areas with opportunities for improvement. The OECI A&D process represented a great opportunity for the cancer center to benchmark the quality of its performance according to standard parameters in comparison with other international centers and to further develop a participatory group identity. The common goal of accreditation was real and participatory with long-lasting positive effects. We agree with the OECI comments about the next areas of work in which the Institute could produce future further efforts: the use of its powerful IT system as a means for outcome analysis and empowerment projects for its cancer patients.