Pilot Randomized Trial of Tacrolimus/Everolimus vs Tacrolimus/Enteric-Coated Mycophenolate Sodium in Adult, Primary Kidney Transplant Recipients at a Single Center

Immunosuppressive drug combinations after kidney transplantation and post-transplant diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a frequent complication after kidney transplantation (KT). This systematic review investigated the effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on the risk of PTDM. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included KT recipients with any immunosuppression and reported PTDM outcomes up to 1 October 2023. The analysis included 125 RCTs. We found no differences in PTDM risk within induction therapies. In de novo KT, there was an increased risk of developing PTDM with tacrolimus versus cyclosporin (RR 1.71, 95%CI [1.38-2.11]). No differences were observed between tacrolimus+mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) and tacrolimus+MMF/MPA, but there was a tendency towards a higher risk of PTDM in the cyclosporin+mTORi group (RR 1.42, 95%CI [0.99-2.04]). Conversion from cyclosporin to an mTORi increased PTDM risk (RR 1.89, 95%CI [1.18-3.03]). De novo belatacept compared with a calcineurin inhibitor resulted in 50% lower risk of PTDM (RR 0.50, 95%CI [0.32-0.79]). Steroid avoidance resulted in 31% lower PTDM risk (RR 0.69, 95%CI [0.57-0.83]), whereas steroid withdrawal resulted in no differences. Immunosuppression should be decided on an individual basis, carefully weighing the risk of future PTDM and rejection.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Immunosuppressive Regimens Post-kidney Transplant: A Systematic Review

Immunosuppressive agents are used post-organ transplant to prevent acute rejection and graft losses. Tacrolimus, the most widely used immunosuppressive agent for kidney transplant recipients, has unfavorable side effects such as new-onset diabetes after transplant, nephrotoxicity, and electrolyte imbalances. Other drug groups such as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, belatacept, and bleselumab have been used to either substitute calcineurin inhibitors or reduce their exposure. This systematic analysis reviews evidence from randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of various immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients. An in-depth methodical search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Mendeley. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed for this study. Randomized controlled trials comparing varying regimens were included in this study. While there was no difference in safety and efficacy between once-daily and twice-daily tacrolimus, mTOR inhibitors showed to be a viable option for a reduced tacrolimus exposure regimen. Calcineurin inhibitor avoidance and early steroid withdrawal regimens both showed increased rates of rejection. Based on these findings, a regimen containing once-daily tacrolimus and an mTOR inhibitor with or without corticosteroid is a viable immunosuppressive regimen post-kidney transplant. Further trials, especially ones with longer follow-up periods, are needed to explore these regimens' long-term safety and efficacy.

Effect of Sirolimus vs. Everolimus on CMV-Infections after Kidney Transplantation-A Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Following renal transplantation, infection with cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common and feared complication. mTOR-inhibitor (mTOR-I) treatment, either alone or in combination with calcineurininhibitors (CNIs), significantly reduces the CMV incidence after organ transplantation. As of now, there is no information on which mTOR-I, sirolimus (SIR) or everolimus (ERL), has a stronger anti-CMV effect. (2) Methods: The current literature was searched for prospective randomized controlled trials in renal transplantation. There were 1164 trials screened, of which 27 could be included (11,655 pts.). We performed a network meta-analysis to analyze the relative risk of different types of mTOR-I treatment on CMV infection 12 months after transplantation compared to CNI treatment. (3) Results: Four different types of mTOR-I treatment were analyzed in network meta-analyses—SIR mono, ERL mono, SIR with CNI, ERL with CNI. The mTOR-I treatment with the strongest anti-CMV effect compared to a regular CNI treatment was ERL in combination with a CNI (relative risk (RR) 0.27, confidence interval (CI) 0.22−0.32, p < 0.0001). The other mTOR-I therapy groups showed a slightly decreased anti-CMV efficacy (SIR monotherapy (mono): RR 0.35, CI 0.22−0.57, p < 0.001; SIR with CNI: RR 0.43, CI 0.29−0.64, p < 0.0001; ERL mono: RR 0.46, CI 0.22−0.93, p = 0.031). (4) Conclusions: The anti-CMV effect of both mTOR-Is (SRL and ERL) is highly effective, irrespective of the combination with other immunosuppressive drugs. Certain differences with respect to the potency against the CMV could be found between SRL and ERL. Data gained from this analysis seem to support that a combination of ERL and CNI has the most potent anti-CMV efficacy.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the therapy of choice for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with an improvement in survival rates and satisfactory short term graft survival. However, there has been little improvement in long-term survival. The place of target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I) (sirolimus, everolimus), which have different modes of action from other commonly used immunosuppressive agents, in kidney transplantation remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the short and long-term benefits and harms of TOR-I (sirolimus and everolimus) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 20 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which drug regimens, containing TOR-I commenced within seven days of transplant, were compared to alternative drug regimens, were included without age restriction, dosage or language of report.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE MAIN RESULTS: Seventy studies (17,462 randomised participants) were included; eight studies included two comparisons to provide 78 comparisons. Outcomes were reported at six months to three years post transplant. Risk of bias was judged to be low for sequence generation in 25 studies, for allocation concealment in 23 studies, performance bias in four studies, detection bias in 65 studies, attrition bias in 45 studies, selective reporting bias in 48 studies, and for other potential bias in three studies. Risk of bias was judged to be at high risk of bias for sequence generation in two studies, allocation concealment in two studies, performance bias in 61 studies, detection bias in one study, attrition bias in four studies, for selective reporting bias in 11 studies and for other potential risk of bias in 46 studies. Compared with CNI and antimetabolite, TOR-I with antimetabolite probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.98; 19 studies) or malignancies (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48; 10 studies); probably increases graft loss censored for death (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.81; 15 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.04; 15 studies), need to change treatment (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.11; 14 studies) and wound complications (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.36; 12 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); but reduces CMV infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; 13 studies) (high certainty evidence). Compared with antimetabolites and CNI, TOR-I with CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.33; 31 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 26 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 24 studies); and malignancies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 17 studies); probably increases the need to change treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; 25 studies), and wound complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.91; 17 studies); but probably reduces CMV infection (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 25 studies) (moderate certainty evidence). Lower dose TOR-I and standard dose CNI compared with higher dose TOR-I and reduced dose CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78; 9 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20; 8 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13; 8 studies), and CMV infection (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; 5 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to wound complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71; 3 studies), malignancies (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04; 7 studies), and the need to change treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 5 studies) (low certainty evidence). Lower dose of TOR-I compared with higher doses probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; 13 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 12 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 11 studies), CMV infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 9 studies), wound complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 7 studies), and malignancy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.32; 10 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the need to change treatments (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 studies) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether sirolimus and everolimus differ in their effects on kidney function and lipid levels because the certainty of the evidence is very low based on a single small study with only three months of follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In studies with follow-up to three years, TOR-I with an antimetabolite increases the risk of graft loss and acute rejection compared with CNI and an antimetabolite. TOR-I with CNI potentially offers an alternative to an antimetabolite with CNI as rates of graft loss and acute rejection are similar between interventions and TOR-I regimens are associated with a reduced risk of CMV infections. Wound complications and the need to change immunosuppressive medications are higher with TOR-I regimens. While further new studies are not required, longer-term follow-up data from participants in existing methodologically robust RCTs are needed to determine how useful immunosuppressive regimens, which include TOR-I, are in maintaining kidney transplant function and survival beyond three years.