Losartan reduces massive proteinuria in kidney transplant patients: a pilot study

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

In some nontransplant populations, effects of different antihypertensive drug classes vary. Relative effects in kidney transplant recipients are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess comparative effects of different classes of antihypertensive agents in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified studies were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any antihypertensive agent applied to kidney transplant recipients for at least two weeks were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by two investigators independently. Study quality, transplant outcomes and other patient centred outcomes were assessed using random effects meta-analysis. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Stratified analyses and meta-regression were used to investigate heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 60 studies, enrolling 3802 recipients. Twenty-nine studies (2262 participants) compared calcium channel blockers (CCB) to placebo/no treatment, 10 studies (445 participants) compared angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) to placebo/no treatment and seven studies (405 participants) compared CCB to ACEi. CCB compared to placebo/no treatment (plus additional agents in either arm as required) reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) and improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR), (MD, 4.45 mL/min, 95% CI 2.22 to 6.68). Data on ACEi versus placebo/no treatment were inconclusive for GFR (MD -8.07 mL/min, 95% CI -18.57 to 2.43), and variable for graft loss, precluding meta-analysis. In direct comparison with CCB, ACEi decreased GFR (MD -11.48 mL/min, 95% CI -5.75 to -7.21), proteinuria (MD -0.28 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10), haemoglobin (MD -12.96 g/L, 95% CI -5.72 to -10.21) and increased hyperkalaemia (RR 3.74, 95% CI 1.89 to 7.43). Graft loss data were inconclusive (RR 7.37, 95% CI 0.39 to 140.35). Other drug comparisons were compared in small numbers of participants and studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that CCB may be preferred as first line agents for hypertensive kidney transplant recipients. ACEi have some detrimental effects in kidney transplant recipients. More high quality studies reporting patient centred outcomes are required.

Immunosuppressive treatment and progression of histologic lesions in kidney allografts

Renal transplantation is the best therapeutic option for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although short-term results are excellent, long-term graft survival has not improved substantially in recent times. Chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) and death with a functioning graft are the most important causes of graft loss. Recent evidence shows that nephrotoxicity of calcineurin inhibitors contributes to CAN, and the introduction of non-nephrotoxic drugs such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors may provide new immunosuppressive strategies to improve long-term results after renal transplantation. MMF decreases the risk of developing chronic allograft failure and is useful for treating established CAN, because it has a beneficial effect on allograft fibrosis. Treatment with sirolimus (SRL), a basic immunosuppressive drug given in association with MMF, may offer better renal function, decrease the prevalence of CAN, and downregulate expression of genes responsible for the progression of CAN than treatment with cyclosporine A (CsA). SRL also permits an early elimination of CsA from SRL-CsA-steroid regimens and shows better renal function and improved renal histology without risk of rejection. Notably, this approach improves graft survival at 4 years. Further multicenter studies are needed to determine whether both approaches produce similar results by comparing immunosuppression caused by SRL-based and tacrolimus (TAC)-based treatments. Because TAC is the most commonly used anticalcineurin drug, it is important to compare the effects of steroid-TAC-SRL treatment with and without elimination of TAC. Finally, although caution is needed, the use of non-nephrotoxic immunosuppressive treatment may change the natural history of CAN.