Article

A prospective, randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine reduction in stable patients greater than 12 months after renal transplantation

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.78). 06/2003; 75(9):1501-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000061606.64917.BE
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT For stable kidney-transplant recipients receiving triple drug therapy with cyclosporine (CsA), prednisone, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), it remains unclear what is the optimal dose of CsA beyond the first 6 to 12 months after transplantation. Complete CsA withdrawal has been associated with a significant incidence of acute rejection and, in some studies, chronic rejection as well.
We performed an open, prospectively randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine whether CsA could be safely reduced by 50%. At 1 year or more posttransplant, 64 patients were randomized to either continue their stable-maintenance CsA dose (control group, n=32) or to lower their CsA dose by 50% over a 2 month period (CsA reduction group, n=32). All patients had stable renal-allograft function at the time of enrollment.
Within 6 months of randomization, no episode of acute rejection or graft loss occurred in either group. Patients in the CsA reduction group had a slight but significant increase in their glomerular filtration rate and a trend towards lower serum creatinine. There was also a significant decrease in mean systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and serum uric acid levels in the CsA reduction group. No significant changes in any of these parameters were observed in the control group.
This study suggests that a strategy consisting of a 50% CsA reduction is safe and is not associated with the increased risk of acute rejection observed in CsA withdrawal studies. It also has the potential to improve short-term allograft function and appears to reduce cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
74 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The nephrotoxicity of cyclosporine A (CsA) accounts for dysfunction of kidney allografts in the clinic. Short-term intensified dosing using enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) may facilitate CsA sparing after kidney transplantation without compromising safety. In a 12-month, single-centre open-label prospective trial, 180 de novo live-donor kidney transplant recipients at low-immunological risk were randomised to a low-dose cyclosporine group which received a low dose of cyclosporine, short-term intensified EC-MPS dosing (2160 mg/day to week 6, 1440 mg/day thereafter) and corticosteroids or a standard-dose cyclosporine group which received a standard dose of cyclosporine, standard EC-MPS dosing (1440 mg/day) and corticosteroids. The primary end-point [treatment failure including biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death], secondary end-point and adverse events were monitored. The primary end-point (treatment failure) occurred in 13.3% (12/90) of the low-dose cyclosporine group and 16.7% (15/90) of the standard-dose cyclosporine group (p = 0.53) (difference -3.4%, 95% confidence interval -11.7% to 7.5%, based on a noninferiority margin of 20%). BPAR occurred in 11.1% and 13.3% of patients in the low-dose cyclosporine group and standard-dose cyclosporine group, respectively (p = 0.65). The estimated glomerular filtration rate, as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula, was similar at 12 months after transplantation (low-dose cyclosporine group 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and standard-dose cyclosporine group 59 ± 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ; p = 0.43). The levels of serum creatinine and occurrence of adverse events between the two groups were not statistically different. A regimen of early intensified EC-MPS dosing permits low-dose cyclosporine in live-donor kidney transplant patients at low-immunological risk without compromising efficacy at 12 months' follow-up.
    International journal of clinical practice. Supplement 04/2014; 68(181):23-30. DOI:10.1111/ijcp.12403
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCCIÓN La mejoría observada en la última década en la supervivencia del injerto y paciente, ha centrado el reto de la investigación clínica, en el trasplante renal, en las complicaciones secundarias a una in-munosupresión a largo plazo. Los nuevos agentes in-munosupresores han disminuido la incidencia de re-chazo agudo y mejorado la supervivencia al año del trasplante 1, 2 , lo que unido a la mejoría observada en la función del injerto renal 2, 3 , debería incrementar el número de pacientes, en los que es de esperar una evolución excelente. Sin embargo, el impacto de estos avances en la supervivencia del injerto a largo plazo ha sido escaso 4 . Los efectos secundarios de los nuevos agentes sobre la inmunidad, con aumento del desarrollo de infecciones o neoplasias 5 , y no inmunes, como la nefrotoxicidad 6 o aumento de los factores de riesgo cardio-vascular: hipertensión, hiperlipemia, diabetes mellitus y anemia 7 , son factores limitantes de una mejoría en los resultados. En la actualidad, la nefropatía crónica del tras-plante (NCT) es la principal causa de pérdida del in-jerto 8 . Además, aunque el riesgo relativo de muerte del paciente ha disminuido en los últimos años 5 , la muerte del paciente con injerto funcionante, es la segunda causa de pérdida del injerto 8 . Ambos fac-tores contribuyen a la pérdida de más del 80% de los injertos trasplantados 5, 8 . Definir estrategias que reduzcan la NCT y la muerte del paciente con in-jerto funcionante, se ha convertido en el principal reto en el trasplante renal 9 . AGENTES Y PROTOCOLOS INMUNOSUPRESORES ACTUALES Los agentes inmunosupresores utilizados en la ac-tualidad en el trasplante de órganos pueden clasifi-carse en cinco categorías: inhibidores de la calci-neurina (ICN) (ciclosporina —CsA—, tacrolimus —TAC—), antiproliferativos (azatioprina, micofeno-lato-mofetil —MMF—, micofenolato sódico), inhibi-dores de la mTOR (sirolimus —SRL—, everolimus), esteroides y anticuerpos policlonales o monoclona-les (globulinas antitimocíticas y antilinfocíticas, mu-romonab CD3, basiliximab y daclizumab) 10 . El pro-tocolo inmunosupresor más frecuentemente utilizado en la actualidad es la terapia con tres agentes —un inhibidor de la calcineurina, un antiproliferativo y esteroides— con o sin inducción con anticuerpos poli o monoclonales 10, 11 . Un análisis de los cambios en la inmunosupre-sión, producidos durante una década (1993-2002) en EE.UU., ha mostrado los siguientes hallazgos 11 : 1) La inducción con anticuerpos mono o policlona-les se ha incrementado del 11% en 1993 al 65% en 2002, siendo en este último año la globulina antiti-mocítica de conejo, basiliximab y daclizumab los agentes más utilizados. 2) El uso de CsA, como ICN, ha pasado de más del 90% a un 30%, con un in-cremento del TAC del 2% a más del 60% . 3) En 1993 el único agente antiproliferativo era la azatio-prina, utilizada en el 86% de los receptores. En 2002 sólo el 2% de los pacientes seguían tratamiento con azatioprina, con un aumento progresivo del MMF, desde su aparición en 1995, hasta el 79% en 2002. 4) El 99% de los pacientes tomaban esteroides en 1993, frente a un 91% en 2002, lo que indica la tendencia cada vez más extendida a evitar o supri-mir los esteroides en el trasplante renal. 5) En 2002 un 15% de los pacientes seguían tratamiento con SRL.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is the parameter currently used in renal transplantation to monitor renal function and to predict long-term survival of the graft. Due to practical difficulties in measuring GFR through inulin or creatinine clearance, formulas have been designed to estimate GFR from serum creatinine and indirect indices of creatinine production from muscles, i.e., gender, age and body weight. These formulas have been used to monitor renal graft function and to predict graft outcome. Present evidence indicates that estimated GFR (eGFR) can be a relatively imprecise instrument to measure renal function, but remains useful for monitoring graft function and predicting graft outcome. Despite certain limitations, eGFR has provided invaluable information on the determinants of renal graft outcome, especially on the effects of different immunosuppressive regimens. A number of trials examining new immunosuppressive regimens (including calcineurin inhibitor minimization and novel therapeutics) have employed eGFR as an endpoint for assessing clinical benefit. In this capacity, eGFR assessment has provided important data for comparing regimens. This paper reviews the usefulness of eGFR for predicting renal transplant outcomes.
    Journal of nephrology 11/2013; 26(6). DOI:10.5301/jn.5000308 · 2.00 Impact Factor