Steroid withdrawal after renal transplantation--risks and benefits

Interventions for preventing bone disease in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

People who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) have important changes to bone structure, strength, and metabolism. Children experience bone deformity, pain, and delayed or impaired growth. Adults experience limb and vertebral fractures, avascular necrosis, and pain. The fracture risk after kidney transplantation is four times that of the general population and is related to Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD) occurring with end-stage kidney failure, steroid-induced bone loss, and persistent hyperparathyroidism after transplantation. Fractures may reduce quality of life and lead to being unable to work or contribute to community roles and responsibilities. Earlier versions of this review have found low certainty evidence for effects of treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

This review update evaluates the benefits and harms of interventions for preventing bone disease following kidney transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 16 May 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating treatments for bone disease among kidney transplant recipients of any age were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial risks of bias and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects meta-analysis. The risk estimates were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary efficacy outcome was bone fracture. The primary safety outcome was acute graft rejection. Secondary outcomes included death (all cause and cardiovascular), myocardial infarction, stroke, musculoskeletal disorders (e.g. skeletal deformity, bone pain), graft loss, nausea, hyper- or hypocalcaemia, kidney function, serum parathyroid hormone (PTH), and bone mineral density (BMD).

MAIN RESULTS

In this 2019 update, 65 studies (involving 3598 participants) were eligible; 45 studies contributed data to our meta-analyses (2698 participants). Treatments included bisphosphonates, vitamin D compounds, teriparatide, denosumab, cinacalcet, parathyroidectomy, and calcitonin. Median duration of follow-up was 12 months. Forty-three studies evaluated bone density or bone-related biomarkers, with more recent studies evaluating proteinuria and hyperparathyroidism. Bisphosphonate therapy was usually commenced in the perioperative transplantation period (within 3 weeks) and regardless of BMD. Risks of bias were generally high or unclear leading to lower certainty in the results. A single study reported outcomes among 60 children and adolescents. Studies were not designed to measure treatment effects on fracture, death or cardiovascular outcomes, or graft loss.Compared to placebo, bisphosphonate therapy administered over 12 months in transplant recipients may prevent fracture (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.01; low certainty evidence) although the 95% CI included the possibility that bisphosphonate therapy might make little or no difference. Fracture events were principally vertebral fractures identified during routine radiographic surveillance. It was uncertain whether any other drug class decreased fracture (low or very low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether interventions for bone disease in kidney transplantation reduce all-cause or cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke, or graft loss in very low certainty evidence. Bisphosphonate therapy may decrease acute graft rejection (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; low certainty evidence), while it is uncertain whether any other treatment impacts graft rejection (very low certainty evidence). Bisphosphonate therapy may reduce bone pain (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93; very low certainty evidence), while it was very uncertain whether bisphosphonates prevent spinal deformity or avascular bone necrosis (very low certainty evidence). Bisphosphonates may increase to risk of hypocalcaemia (RR 5.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 31.06; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether vitamin D compounds had any effect on skeletal, cardiovascular, death, or transplant function outcomes (very low certainty or absence of evidence). Evidence for the benefits and harms of all other treatments was of very low certainty. Evidence for children and young adolescents was sparse.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonate therapy may reduce fracture and bone pain after kidney transplantation, however low certainty in the evidence indicates it is possible that treatment may make little or no difference. It is uncertain whether bisphosphonate therapy or other bone treatments prevent other skeletal complications after kidney transplantation, including spinal deformity or avascular bone necrosis. The effects of bone treatment for children and adolescents after kidney transplantation are very uncertain.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal after renal transplantation increases the risk of acute rejection but decreases cardiovascular risk. A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The morbidity related to long-term steroid therapy has led to continued interest in withdrawal of steroids from immunosuppressant regimens after renal transplantation. A number of recent trials have provided long-term information regarding the risks and benefits of steroid avoidance or withdrawal (SAW).

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Transplant Library. Randomized controlled trials comparing a maintenance steroid group with complete avoidance or withdrawal of steroids were selected. All studies were assessed for methodological quality. Trials were pooled by meta-analysis to provide summary effects (relative risk [RR] or weighted mean difference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies including 5,637 patients met the inclusion criteria. SAW regimens significantly increased the risk of acute rejection (AR) over maintenance steroids (RR 1.56, CI 1.31-1.87, P<0.0001). No significant differences in corticosteroid resistant AR, patient survival, or graft survival were observed. Serum creatinine was increased and creatinine clearance was reduced with SAW. Cardiovascular risk factors including incidence of hypertension (RR 0.90, CI 0.85-0.94, P<0.0001), new onset diabetes (RR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.83, P=0.0006), and hypercholesterolemia (RR 0.76, CI 0.67-0.87, P<0.0001) were reduced significantly by SAW.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increase in the risk of AR with SAW protocols, there is only a small effect on graft function with no measurable effect on graft or patient survival. There are significant benefits in cardiovascular risk profiles after SAW. SAW protocols would seem justified with current immunosuppressive protocols in low-risk recipients.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted during the last two decades in order to avoid morbidity in kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown significant increases in acute rejection and an increase in graft failure rates. Steroid avoidance in kidney transplantation is increasingly attempted and the possible benefits or harms have never been a subject of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of steroid withdrawal or avoidance in patients receiving a kidney transplant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, references lists and abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) of steroid avoidance or withdrawal were included providing that one treatment arm consisted in steroid avoidance or withdrawal and intention-to-treat rates of acute rejection and graft failure were clearly established after steroid avoidance or use or withdrawal or continuation. Observational studies were tabulated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs (5949 participants). Steroid-sparing strategies showed no effect on mortality or graft loss including death. Patients on any steroid-sparing strategy showed a higher risk of graft loss excluding death than those with conventional steroid use (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52), especially in those not receiving MMF/Myf or everolimus (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.90). Acute rejection was more frequent with a steroid-sparing strategy (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.40) and more frequent after steroid withdrawal or avoidance when compared with standard steroid treatment when cyclosporin (CsA) was used. Steroid-sparing and withdrawal strategies showed benefits in reducing antihypertensive drug need, serum cholesterol, antihyperlipidaemic drug need, new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) requiring any treatment and cataracts. Steroid avoidance did not alter serum cholesterol, but was associated with less frequent NODAT requiring any treatment. Cardiovascular events were reduced with steroid avoidance. Reduced antihypertensive drug need and serum cholesterol were similar with CsA or tacrolimus (TAC). Reduced antihyperlipidaemic drug need was only evident with TAC, whereas the reduction in NODAT requiring any treatment was only evident with CsA. Infection was lower in steroid-sparing patients using CsA (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). NODAT requiring any treatment was less frequent with steroid avoidance than with steroid withdrawal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms that steroid avoidance and steroid withdrawal strategies in kidney transplantation are not associated with increased mortality or graft loss despite an increase in acute rejection. These immunosuppression strategies may allow safe steroid avoidance or elimination a few days after kidney transplantation if antibody induction treatment is prescribed or after three to six months if such induction is not used.

Steroid Withdrawal Increases Risk of Acute Rejection but Reduces Infection: A Meta-Analysis of 1681 Cases in Renal Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation recipients.

METHODS

These following databases were searched: Medline (1966 to September 2005), OVID (1966 to 2004), Embase (1984 to 2004), Cochrane library (issue 4, 2005), Highwire (1849 to September 2005), American Transplant Congress (2005), Chinese Biomedicine database (CBM 1994 to 2005). The safety was measured by the following factors: patient and graft survival, acute rejection, chronic rejection, infection, serum creatinine. We performed meta-analysis by using Revman 4.2.7.

RESULTS

Nine randomized clinical trials were identified to have a steroid withdrawal and a steroid continuing group. They included 1681 patients: 845 with steroid withdrawal and 836 with continuing steroid. The risk of acute rejection after steroid withdrawal was two times higher than steroid-continuing group (RR 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54, 2.72; P < .00001), while the incidence of opportunistic infection and urinary tract infection of steroid withdrawal group were lower than the control group (RR 0.80; 95%CI 0.64, 1.00; P = .05 vs RR 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60, 0.92; P = .004, respectively). The graft and patient survivals, chronic rejection, and serum creatinine were similar to the steroid continuing group.

CONCLUSION

Steroid withdrawal can significantly increase the risk of acute rejection episodes, but reduces the incidence of infection to a certain extent. To prophylaxis against serious infection, steroid withdrawal is worth considering using a sufficient immunosuppressive regimen. The key point is to balance the benefit and harm for the individual recipient.

Immunosuppression and immune monitoring after renal transplantation

Monitoring of immunosuppression therapy in renal transplant recipients is essential for good patient and graft survival. Monitoring includes frequent laboratory assays of serum immunosuppression levels, patient visits to assess and treat side effects, and vigilance for medication interactions. We review the various immunosuppression medications commonly used in renal transplantation, including usual dosing and side effects. Monitoring assays are discussed, as well as the frequency of monitoring and patient visits. Finally, we discuss several common clinical scenarios that often require adjustment of immunosuppression medications or regimens.

Bone disease after kidney transplantation

Advances in immunosuppressive therapy have allowed for enhanced allograft survival in kidney transplantation. With this increasing success of transplantation, however, has come a greater appreciation of subsequent complications, such as bone and mineral disease. In patients with chronic kidney disease who are awaiting transplantation, disorders in mineral metabolism and renal osteodystrophy are an essentially universal finding, and several different pathophysiologic mechanisms are believed to contribute to the development of these disorders.

Corticosteroid avoidance in pediatric renal transplantation

Corticosteroids have played a central role in the evolution of renal transplant as the modality of choice for renal replacement in end stage kidney disease. Their use is associated with significant, dose related morbidity including osseous, cardiovascular, metabolic complications, body disfigurement and growth retardation in children. The strategies that have been employed to minimize these side effects include reduction in the daily administered dose of steroids, use of alternate day dosing regimens, steroid withdrawal post-transplantation and complete steroid avoidance. Steroid dose minimization has been associated with increased rates of acute rejection, though introduction of newer and more potent immunosuppressives has helped reduce the incidence of this complication. Steroid minimization will benefit patient morbidity due to cataracts, cardiovascular and osseous complications, but may offer little benefit towards improving linear growth. Alternate day steroid therapy may have a greater impact on growth improvement, but may be troubled by regimen non-adherence. Steroid withdrawal post-transplant, the ultimate target, is successful in a cohort of patients, but overall, has been historically associated with unacceptably high rates of clinical acute rejection, and has thus been used sparingly in adults and even less so in children. Complete corticosteroid avoidance, using newer induction and immunosuppressive agents, has been associated with an 8-23% incidence of acute rejection in pediatric renal transplant patients, significant catch-up growth post-transplant, improvements in post-transplant hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and a high safety profile at current follow-up. Newer induction protocols may allow complete steroid-free immunosuppression thus offering significant advantages in preventing the above-mentioned steroid related morbidity, which could also possibly be applicable to other areas of solid organ transplantation in all age groups.

Corticosteroid avoidance in pediatric renal transplantation: can it be achieved?

Corticosteroids have been a cornerstone therapy in renal transplantation, which is the treatment modality of choice for adult and pediatric end-stage renal disease. Their use is associated with significant morbidity, notably cardiovascular, endocrine, and bone complications, body disfiguration, and almost universal growth retardation in children. While newer immunosuppressants have reduced the incidence of these adverse effects, they continue to pose significant post-transplant challenges. There are various strategies that can be used to avoid these adverse effects including the use of an alternative corticosteroid such as deflazacort, minimization of corticosteroid dosage, corticosteroid withdrawal after a period of early use, and more recently complete corticosteroid avoidance. Recent randomized studies have demonstrated significant improvement in growth parameters, lipid profile, and in the amount of bone loss in patients treated with deflazacort, an oxazoline analog of prednisone, compared with methylprednisone.Corticosteroid minimization has been associated with an increased rate of acute rejection. While augmentation with newer immunosuppressants has helped reduce the incidence of acute rejection, significant improvements in growth have not been demonstrated. Alternate-day corticosteroid therapy has been shown to have a beneficial effect on growth but regimen compliance has limited its widespread applicability. Studies of corticosteroid withdrawal have met with varied success. Early corticosteroid withdrawal has been associated with rejection rates ranging from 10% to 81% and late corticosteroid withdrawal, from 13% to 68.8%, with acute rejection episodes occurring as late as 4 years after corticosteroid withdrawal. The rates of clinical acute rejection have been unacceptably high, and corticosteroid withdrawal is thus used very sparingly in adults and even less so in children. Complete corticosteroid avoidance as reported by an initial study has been associated with a 23% incidence of acute rejection and 'catch-up' growth post-transplantation in 14 pediatric recipients, as measured by the change in height standard deviation scores post-transplantation. A second renal transplant study, in adults, demonstrated similar rejection rates of 25% with improvement in post-transplant hypertension and lipid profiles. A more recent pediatric study using a novel extended daclizumab induction protocol demonstrated an 8% incidence of clinical acute rejection with significant improvements in graft function, hypertension, and growth, without an increased incidence of infectious complications. Renal transplantation with a corticosteroid-free protocol may offer significant advantages in the incidence of acute rejection, graft function, growth, blood pressure, lipidemia, and body appearance and appears to be well tolerated when used with a variety of current induction protocols to replace early corticosteroid use. This protocol may also be applicable to other areas of solid organ transplantation in all age groups.

Impact of kidney transplantation on the progression of cardiovascular disease

Kidney transplantation, of all the treatment modalities for end-stage renal disease, affords the greatest potential for prolonged survival and improved quality of life. Great strides in immunosuppressant therapy have improved graft survival and forced clinicians to consider other health-care needs of kidney transplant recipients. Chief among these needs is the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death among patients with a working renal allograft. Because therapies for primary and secondary prevention are successful in the general population, transplant clinicians are increasingly focused on preventing or limiting the progression of cardiovascular disease. Initiation of aggressive management of conventional atherosclerotic risk factors and uremia-related risk factors, ideally during the early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or after kidney transplantation, and efforts to delay the progression of kidney disease will hopefully reduce the cardiovascular burden in transplant recipients.

Bone disease after kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the optimal form of renal replacement therapy for many with end-stage kidney disease. However, kidney transplantation comes with a unique set of medical complications, important among them is bone disease. Posttransplant bone disorders are manifestations of pathologic processes occurring posttransplant that are superimposed on preexisting disorders of bone and mineral metabolism secondary to kidney failure and/or diabetes mellitus. As a consequence of early rapid bone loss, which is seen commonly within the first 3 to 6 months of transplant, the fracture risk posttransplant increases and has been reported as high as 5% to 44%. Posttransplant fractures occur more commonly at peripheral than central sites. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus are at particular risk for fracture. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) and osteocalcin levels generally decrease after transplantation. Alkaline phosphatase and urinary collagen cross-links are unpredictable. Bone histology varies. No single biomarker unequivocally distinguishes between the various bone disorders found on biopsy examination. Immunosuppression is a major cause of posttransplant bone disorders. Glucocorticoids lead to decreased bone formation whereas the calcineurin inhibitors appear to cause increased bone turnover. Evaluating and managing posttransplant bone disease is an integral part of posttransplant medical care.