METHODS: Subjects were 200 consecutive patients admitted to Kuala Tereng-ganu General Hospital, Malaysia with severe hypertension in pregnancy between August 1989 and June 1990. Admission criteria were an ongoing viable pregnancy more than 28 weeks and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) more than 120 mmHg. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. In group I, sublingual nifedipine 5 mg was administered and repeated after 15 minutes if DBP > 120 mmHg; and in group II hydrallazine 5 mg was intravenously injected and repeated after 15 minutes if DBP > 120 mmHg. Both groups were put on hydrallazine infusion if DBP > 120 mmHg after 30 minutes. The Chi-square test was used for analysis with significance at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the efficacy of therapy for decreasing blood pressure between the 2 groups. The groups were comparable by age, parity, gestational age at presentation, birth weight of infants, incidence of postpartum haemorrhage and fetal distress. Caesarian section rates were similar. In the observational studies on nurses administering the drugs, no significant difficulties were observed.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual nifedipine was comparable to IV hydrallazine in the treatment of acute hypertension of pregnancy. Nurses were able to administer lingual nifedipine without difficulty.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on all KTRs ≥18 years of age at our center from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015, who were prescribed diltiazem as tacrolimus-sparing agent. Blood tacrolimus trough level (TacC0) and other relevant clinical data for 70 eligible KTRs were reviewed.
RESULTS: The dose of 1 mg tacrolimus resulted in a median TacC0 of 0.83 ± 0.52 ng/mL. With the introduction of a 90-mg/d dose diltiazem, there was a significant TacC0 increase to 1.39 ± 1.31 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P < .01). A further 90-mg increase in diltiazem to 180 mg/d resulted in a further increase of TacC0 to 1.66 ± 2.58 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P = .01). After this, despite a progressive increment of every 90-mg/d dose diltiazem to 270 mg/d and 360 mg/d, there was no further increment in TacC0 (1.44 ± 1.15 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus and 1.24 ± 0.94 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus, respectively [P < .01]). Addition of 180 mg/d diltiazem reduced the required tacrolimus dose to 4 mg/d, resulting in a cost-savings of USD 2045.92 per year (per patient) at our center. Adverse effects reported within 3 months of diltiazem introduction were bradycardia (1.4%) and postural hypotension (1.4%), which resolved after diltiazem dose reduction.
CONCLUSION: Coadministration of tacrolimus and diltiazem in KTRs appeared to be safe and resulted in a TacC0 increment until reaching a 180-mg/d total diltiazem dose, at which point it began to decrease. This approach will result in a marked savings in immunosuppression costs among KTRs in Malaysia.