Effects of three immunosuppressive regimens on CD4 helper function, B cell monocyte and cytokine responses in renal transplant recipients: 4-month follow-up of a prospective randomized study

Comparison of CD4 Counts with Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Methotrexate from the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) Uveitis Trial

PURPOSE

Sub-analysis of the FAST Trial comparing change in CD4 (∆CD4) from baseline through 12 months in uveitis patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to 1.5 g twice daily MMF or 25 mg weekly MTX. Individuals with CD4 counts at baseline, 6 months (or treatment failure prior), and 12 months (or treatment failure between 6 and 12 months) were included. The association between treatment and ∆CD4 (cells/μL) was analyzed using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in ∆CD4 between MMF and MTX at 6 months (-31.7 cells/μL for MMF compared to MTX; 95% CI: -358.2 to 294.8, P = .85) and 12 months (-78.3 cells/μL for MMF compared to MTX; 95% CI: -468.0 to 311.3; P = .69).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in ∆CD4 between MMF and MTX from baseline to 12 months, suggesting that MMF does not confer additional risk of CD4 lymphopenia in uveitic patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01829295.

Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Modern immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation usually use a combination of two or three agents of different classes to prevent rejection and maintain graft function. Most frequently, calcineurin-inhibitors (CNI) are combined with corticosteroids and a proliferation-inhibitor, either azathioprine (AZA) or mycophenolic acid (MPA). MPA has largely replaced AZA as a first line agent in primary immunosuppression, as MPA is believed to be of stronger immunosuppressive potency than AZA. However, treatment with MPA is more costly, which calls for a comprehensive assessment of the comparative effects of the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

This review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to look at the benefits and harms of MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation. Both agents were compared regarding their efficacy for maintaining graft and patient survival, prevention of acute rejection, maintaining graft function, and their safety, including infections, malignancies and other adverse events. Furthermore, we investigated potential effect modifiers, such as transplantation era and the concomitant immunosuppressive regimen in detail.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (to 21 September 2015) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs about MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppression after kidney transplantation were included, without restriction on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (94 reports) that involved 3301 participants. All studies tested mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an MPA, and 22 studies reported at least one outcome relevant for this review. Assessment of methodological quality indicated that important information on factors used to judge susceptibility for bias was infrequently and inconsistently reported.MMF treatment reduced the risk for graft loss including death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.0) and for death-censored graft loss (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99, P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference for MMF versus AZA treatment was found for all-cause mortality (16 studies, 2987 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29). The risk for any acute rejection (22 studies, 3301 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73, P < 0.01), biopsy-proven acute rejection (12 studies, 2696 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.68) and antibody-treated acute rejection (15 studies, 2914 participants: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.65, P < 0.01) were reduced in MMF treated patients. Meta-regression analyses suggested that the magnitude of risk reduction of acute rejection may be dependent on the control rate (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.09, P = 0.08), AZA dose (RRR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.10) and the use of cyclosporin A micro-emulsion (RRR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65, P = 0.07). Pooled analyses failed to show a significant and meaningful difference between MMF and AZA in kidney function measures.Data on malignancies and infections were sparse, except for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The risk for CMV viraemia/syndrome (13 studies, 2880 participants: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) was not statistically significantly different between MMF and AZA treated patients, whereas the likelihood of tissue-invasive CMV disease was greater with MMF therapy (7 studies, 1510 participants: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.61). Adverse event profiles varied: gastrointestinal symptoms were more likely in MMF treated patients and thrombocytopenia and elevated liver enzymes were more common in AZA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MMF was superior to AZA for improvement of graft survival and prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. These benefits must be weighed against potential harms such as tissue-invasive CMV disease. However, assessment of the evidence on safety outcomes was limited due to rare events in the observation periods of the studies (e.g. malignancies) and inconsistent reporting and definitions (e.g. infections, adverse events). Thus, balancing benefits and harms of the two drugs remains a major task of the transplant physician to decide which agent the individual patient should be started on.

Relationship of Interleukin-10 and Transforming Growth Factor-β Levels With Short-Term Graft Function After Kidney Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the relationship of interleukin-10 (IL-10) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) levels with graft function in kidney transplantation patients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppression during the early post-transplantation period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 112 patients who underwent kidney transplantation from live donors between May 2011 and May 2013. Eight patients had at least 1 of the exclusion criteria, and the remaining 104 patients were included in the study. The recipients underwent evaluation for biochemical markers, complete blood count, and creatinine and cytokine (IL-10, TGF-β) levels during the pretransplantation and post-transplantation 6 months.

RESULTS

The creatinine level was negatively correlated with IL-10 and positively correlated with TGF-β levels in both the pretransplantation and early post-transplantation period.

CONCLUSION

Low serum TGF-β and high IL-10 levels at post-transplantation month 6 might have a positive effect on graft survival in living donor kidney recipients on tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive treatment.

Cryptosporidiosis: a rare and severe infection in a pediatric renal transplant recipient

Cryptosporidium is an intracellular protozoan parasite that causes gastroenteritis in human. In immunocompromised individuals, cryptosporidium causes far more serious disease. There is no effective specific therapy for cryptosporidiosis, and spontaneous recovery is the rule in healthy individuals. However, immunocompromised patients need effective and prolonged therapy. Here, we present our clinical experience in a six-yr-old boy who underwent living-related donor renal transplantation and who was infected with Cryptosporidium spp. Our patient was successfully treated with antimicrobial agents consisting of spiramycin, nitazoxanide, and paromomycin. At the end of second week of therapy, his stool became negative for Cryptosporidium spp. antigen and spiramycin was discontinued. Nitazoxanide and paromomycin treatment was extended to four wk. With this case, we want to emphasize that cryptosporidiosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of severe or persistent diarrhea in solid organ transplant recipients where rigorous antimicrobial therapy is needed.

Post-transplant sCD30 and neopterin as predictors of chronic allograft nephropathy: impact of different immunosuppressive regimens

Immunological monitoring for chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) is of great potential interest. We assessed serum soluble CD30 (sCD30) together with in vitro Th2-type responses (IL-4, IL-10, CD4 helper activity) and neopterin in a prospective study of 84 renal transplant recipients with 2-year follow-up. Patients were randomized to CsA/Aza, CsA/MMF and Tacr/Aza, respectively, to analyze the effect of immunosuppression on posttransplant sCD30 and neopterin. ATG induction and acute rejections did not alter sCD30 levels whereas CMV disease was associated with transient upregulation of sCD30 (p = 0.003 at 4 months) and sustained upregulation of neopterin (corrected for graft function (Neo/CR) p = 0.005 at 2 years). Tacr versus CsA treatment proved to be an independent variable associated with downregulation of 1-year sCD30, which was positively related to Neo/CR (p = 0.007 and 0.01, respectively; logistic regression). Importantly, increased 1-year sCD30 and Neo/CR were associated with decreased glomerular filtration rate at 2 years (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0005, respectively) and evidence of CAN (p < 0.0005). High 1-year sCD30 could not be attributed to enhanced Th2-type responses and was not associated with HLA antibody formation. Our data suggest that elevated sCD30 and neopterin predict graft deterioration by CAN. Tacr effectively downregulates these responses and might be of advantage in patients with elevated sCD30 or neopterin.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Standard protocols in use typically involve three drug groups each directed to a site in the T-cell activation or proliferation cascade which are central to the rejection process: calcineurin inhibitors (e.g. cyclosporin, tacrolimus), anti-proliferative agents (e.g. azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and steroids (prednisolone). It remains unclear whether new regimens are more specific or simply more potent immunosuppressants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of tacrolimus with cyclosporin as primary therapy for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group's specialist register and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility, quality and extracted data independently.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs where tacrolimus was compared with cyclosporin for the initial treatment of kidney transplant recipients

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), values <1 favouring tacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect was persistent up to three years. Meta-regression showed that this benefit diminished as higher trough levels of tacrolimus were targeted (P = 0.04), after allowing for differences in cyclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) and cyclosporin target trough level (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus patients suffered less acute rejection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79), and less steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64), but more insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus (RR 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia and vomiting. Cyclosporin-treated recipients experienced significantly more constipation and cosmetic side-effects. We demonstrated no differences in infection or malignancy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus is superior to cyclosporin in improving graft survival and preventing acute rejection after kidney transplantation, but increases post-transplant diabetes, neurological and gastrointestinal side effects. Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid 12 suffering acute rejection, two losing their graft but cause an extra five to become insulin-requiring diabetics.

Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised trial data

OBJECTIVE

To compare the positive and negative effects of tacrolimus and ciclosporin as initial treatment for renal transplant recipients.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Reports of comparative randomised trials of tacrolimus and ciclosporin identified by searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group Specialist Register, and conference proceedings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), with values < 1 favouring tacrolimus. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions.

RESULTS

123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months, graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus treated recipients (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect persisted up to three years. The relative reduction in graft loss with tacrolimus diminished with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.04) but did not vary with ciclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) or ciclosporin concentration (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus treated patients had less acute rejection (RR = 0.69, 0.60 to 0.79) and less steroid resistant rejection (RR = 0.49, 0.37 to 0.64) but more diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (RR = 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, and vomiting. The relative excess of diabetes increased with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.003). Ciclosporin treated recipients had significantly more constipation and cosmetic side effects. No differences were seen in infection or malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of ciclosporin for the first year after transplantation avoids 12 patients having acute rejection and two losing their graft but causes an extra five patients to develop insulin dependent diabetes. Optimal drug choice may vary between patients.

ATG induction therapy: long-term effects on Th1 but not on Th2 responses

Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction therapy is associated with an increased long-term risk of infection- and cancer-related death. To analyze long-term effects of ATG induction on lymphocyte function, we prospectively assessed CD4 helper function, B-cell/monocyte and cytokine responses in 84 renal transplant recipients (ATG, n = 44) up to 1 year post-transplant. A PWM-driven allogeneic coculture system was used to assess helper function of CD4+ T cells and T-cell-dependent B-cell responses. SAC I was used for T-cell-independent stimulation of B-cell cultures. In vitro cytokine secretion and serum soluble CD30 (sCD30) were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). ATG induced a persistent decrease of peripheral blood lymphocyte counts compared with non-ATG treatment because of a predominant decrease of CD4+ T cells (4 months, 1 year; P < 0.0005) which was associated with a decreased CD28 expression (1 year, P = 0.02) and CD4 cell interleukin 2 (IL-2) response (4 months, P < 0.0005). However, Th2 responses (CD4 help, CD4 cell IL-4 and IL-10 responses, sCD30), which proved to be predictive of graft outcome, were not affected, and neither was the secretion of the lymphoma growth factors IL-6 and IL-10 by B cells and monocytes. Our data show that ATG induction therapy in immunological high-risk patients induces a profound long-term decrease in cell counts and Th1 but not Th2 responses of CD4+ T cells which may explain long-term effects on infection and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) incidence because of inadequate T-cell control.