Does early steroid withdrawal influence rejection and infection episodes during the first 2 years after heart transplantation?

Steroid withdrawal after heart transplantation in adults

Corticosteroids (CSs) are a key component of immunosuppressive treatment after heart transplantation (HTx). While effectively preventing acute rejection, several adverse effects including diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, and hyperlipidemia are associated with long-term use. As these complications may impair long-term outcome in HTx recipients, withdrawal of CSs is highly desirable, however, no uniform approach exists. Previous experience suggests that CS withdrawal can be accomplished without an increase in the incidence of acute rejection and even carrying a survival benefit. Also, common complications related to long-term CS use appear to be less frequent following CS discontinuation. Recipients who successfully discontinue CSs, however, likely belong to an immune-privileged subset of patients with low risk of post-transplant complications. Available studies evaluating CS withdrawal are highly heterogeneous and consensus on optimal timing and eligibility for withdrawal is lacking. Efforts to improve the understanding of optimal CS withdrawal strategy are of great importance in order to safely promote CS weaning in eligible patients and thereby alleviate the adverse effects of long-term CS use on post-transplant outcomes. The purpose of this review was to evaluate different protocols of CS withdrawal after HTx in terms of clinical outcomes and to explore criteria for successful CS withdrawal.

Corticosteroid Weaning in Stable Heart Transplant Patients: Guidance by Serum Cortisol Level

Background

Despite earlier studies describing the feasibility of steroid weaning in heart transplant patients, the majority of patients are maintained on steroid therapy for life. We examined a strategy based on a single morning serum cortisol measurement.

Methods

We assigned stable posttransplant patients, who were maintained on tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids, into one of two groups based on a screening morning cortisol level. Patients with a cortisol < 8 micrograms/deciliter were assigned to a “maintenance” group and the others were assigned to the weaning group and steroids were tapered off over 4–6 weeks. Patients were monitored on subsequent office visits for adrenal insufficiency and allograft rejection.

Results

Thirty-one patients were enrolled (6 patients in the maintenance group and 25 in the steroid-weaning group). Mean follow-up was 10.2 ± 4 years for the weaning group and 9.0 ± 4.9 years in the maintenance group (p = 0.6). No cases of rejection were noted, nor did any patient resume steroid treatment following discontinuation.

Conclusion

Steroids can be safely discontinued in stable heart transplant patients with an AM serum cortisol ≥ 8 micrograms/deciliter with appropriate outpatient follow-up. In this study, no patient suffered late rejection or clinically noted adrenal insufficiency.

Steroid-free and steroid withdrawal protocols in heart transplantation: the review of literature

Corticosteroids (CSs) are still the mainstay of induction, rescue, and maintenance in heart transplantation (HTx). However, their use is associated with significant and well-documented side effects usually related to the dose administered and the duration of therapy. Moreover, CSs interfere with the recipient's quality of life and with the active process of graft tolerance. Physicians have been exploring ways to avoid or reduce CSs in association with other immunosuppressive drugs, minimizing side effects and costs. The regimens are classified as steroid-free or steroid withdrawal protocols. The studies analyzed in this review come to similar conclusions as benefits and adverse consequences: steroid-free protocols should be advisable and mandatory in pediatric patients, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), presence of infection, familial metabolic disorders/obesity, severe osteoporosis, and in the elderly. On the other hand, steroid withdrawal can be successfully achieved in 50-80%, with late better than early withdrawal, no increase in rejection-related mortality, no adverse impact on survival, and probably a better quality of live. Safety and efficacy can certainly be improved by an individualized approach to the transplant recipient.

Effects of Early Steroid Withdrawal After Heart Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Managing immunosuppression is a significant aspect of posttransplantation patient care. Previously, our institution reported that prednisone could be withdrawn in cardiac allograft recipients without jeopardizing midterm survival. We returned to this group of patients to investigate the long-term effects of our steroid taper protocol.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 162 consecutive cardiac transplant recipients from our institution. Patients who underwent transplantation between 1988 and 1990 were treated with traditional triple-therapy immunosuppression (cyclosporine, azathioprine, and prednisone). Beginning June 1990, we instituted a protocol of early steroid taper with discontinuation by 6 months after transplant. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, cause of heart failure, ischemic time, body mass index, and creatinine at the time of transplantation.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of the patients in the early steroid taper group were successfully withdrawn from steroids at 6 months after transplantation. This group had a decreased freedom from and increased frequency of acute rejection (p < 0.01 for each) when compared with the traditional therapy group. There was, however, no difference in freedom from posttransplant coronary artery disease (p = 0.53). The early steroid taper group enjoyed an increased freedom from malignancy (p = 0.01) and trended toward a decreased frequency of infection (p = 0.10) and improved survival (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid withdrawal is possible in 57% of patients at 6 months after transplantation. The institution of an early steroid taper protocol improves the overall freedom from malignancies and may decrease the frequency of infection and prolong overall survival without increasing the risk of posttransplant coronary artery disease.

Drug immunosuppression therapy for adult heart transplantation. Part 2: clinical applications and results

This review describes the clinical application of classical immunosuppressive drugs as well as that of more recent drugs. All current immunosuppressive drugs target T-cell activation, and cytokine production and clonal expansion, or both. Immunosuppressive protocols can be broadly divided into induction therapy, maintenance immunosuppression, and treatment of acute rejection episodes.

Neoral use in the cardiac transplant recipient

CyA is the core immunosuppressant of choice for the majority of transplant patients. The introduction of Neoral, a new microemulsion formulation of CyA. and more recently a range of adjunctive immunosuppressants have further enhanced the efficacy and tolerability of CyA-based immunosuppression. In the first year following transplantation the major causes of morbidity and death are graft failure, acute rejection, and systemic infection. Patients with deteriorated pulmonary circulation before transplantation are at increased risk of early postoperative death. Risk factors for early acute rejection include female donor sex, young donor age, and multiple HLA-DR mismatches. The principal cause of death in the long term is graft vasculopathy which accounted for 40% of all deaths. Risk factors that have been hypothesized to play a role in the pathogenesis of graft vasculopathy include hyperlipidemia, recipient age and gender, donor age, the number of HLA AB and DR mismatches, and CMV infection. Strategies proposed to reduce the risk of graft vasculopathy include aggressive use of lipid-lowering agents, avoidance of low CyA doses, and the use of adjunctive rapamycin or RAD therapy. Rejection surveillance therefore relies on routine serial endomyocardial biopsy. Recent research suggests that a more accurate assessment of the state of the graft can be obtained by considering the results across a number of biopsy samples obtained from different parts of the heart, rather than basing clinical judgment on the worst single result obtained. New molecular markers such as granzyme A mRNA are likely to improve the power of histology to diagnose and predict rejection. Neoral pharmacokinetics give greater bioavailability and less intrapatient variability than Sandimmune. In the keynote OLN 351 study comparing Neoral with Sandimmune in de novo heart transplant recipients, fewer Neoral patients needed antilymphocyte therapy to treat rejection, fewer female patients had rejection episodes in the Neoral group, the tolerability of the two formulations was equivalent, and there was a lower incidence of infections in the Neoral group. The clinical impact of Neoral in comparison with Sandimmune in de novo heart transplant patients has been investigated in a number of additional trials, including long-term studies, which have confirmed that Neoral is associated with: Lower CyA doses than Sandimmune. Equal or greater antirejection efficacy than Sandimmune. Comparable tolerability to Sandimmune. During the administration of intravenous CyA as an induction therapy in the days immediately following transplantation, there is evidence to suggest that a 6-hour infusion given twice daily, which mimics the pharmacokinetic profile of oral dosing, may be clinically more effective than a continuous 24-hour infusion. Milligram-for-milligram dose conversion from Sandimmune to Neoral is feasible. Following conversion, a reduction in the CyA dose may be required in the majority of patients to maintain target levels. In pediatric patients, the rate of elimination of CyA is greater and bioavailability increases with increasing age. Younger patients (less than 8 years of age) may be managed more effectively with a 3-times-daily, rather than a twice-daily dosing schedule. A number of studies have compared the clinical effects of Sandimmune and Neoral in maintenance therapy for cardiac transplant patients. As with de novo patients, these studies have found the new formulation of CyA to be associated with lower rates of acute rejection, lower therapeutic doses, and comparable tolerability. Milligram-to-milligram conversion from the old to the new CyA formulation is generally well tolerated, although in a minority of patients there is a significant increase in CyA levels. These may be associated with a transient increase in side effects which resolve on dose reduction. There is a dose-sparing effect with Neoral. Routine monitoring of both CyA and serum creatinine levels are adv

Extramediastinal surgical problems in heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

As heart transplantation has gained wide acceptance, a growing number of recipients are at risk of experiencing extramediastinal surgical problems.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed our experience in the diagnosis and management of surgical problems occurring in 94 consecutive patients having heart transplantation. During the period of the study, we progressively adopted a policy of low-level immunosuppression, aiming toward monotherapy with cyclosporine.

RESULTS

Seventy-four extramediastinal surgical problems developed in 44 of 94 patients (47%). The type of problems were gastrointestinal in 17 of 74 (23%), vascular in 13 of 74 (17.5%), urogenital in 8 of 74 (11%), and neurologic in 4 of 74 (5.5%). There were also 9 of 74 cases of trauma (12%), 9 of 74 skin tumors (12%), and 14 of 74 miscellaneous diseases (19%). Sixty-two surgical diseases occurring in 40 patients required 75 surgical interventions, 11 of them (15%) on an emergency basis. Operations were performed for 12 of 74 neoplasms (16%) and 12 of 74 infectious or potentially infectious diseases (16%). Surgical diseases occurred most commonly within the first 6 months after transplantation (20 of 74; 27%). Complications occurred in 8 of 75 surgical interventions (9%). A high proportion of surgical disease was potentially related to immunosuppressive therapy (37 of 74; 50%) or to transplantation itself (7 of 74; 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Extramediastinal diseases after heart transplantation involve most surgical specialties. Most of them are potentially linked with either the immunosuppressive therapy or the transplantation procedure, supporting our low-level immunosuppression policy. Expectant management is not justified in this population, who withstands operations well both early and late after transplantation.