Maintenance therapy with triple versus double immunosuppressive regimen in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis

Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals

Physicians often scan a select number of journals to keep up to date with practice evidence for patients with kidney conditions. This raises the question of where relevant studies are published. We performed a bibliometric analysis using 195 renal systematic reviews. Each review used a comprehensive method to identify all primary studies for a focused clinical question relevant to patient care. We compiled all the primary studies included in these reviews, and considered where each study was published. Of the 2779 studies, 1351 (49%) were published in the top 20 journals. Predictably, this list included Transplantation Proceedings (5.9% of studies), Kidney International (5.3%), American Journal of Kidney Diseases (4.7%), Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (4.3%), Transplantation (4.2%), and Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2.4%). Ten non-renal journals were also on this list, including New England Journal of Medicine (2.4%), Lancet (2.3%), and Diabetes Care (2.2%). The remaining 1428 (51%) studies were published across other 446 journals. When the disciplines of all journals were considered, 59 were classified as renal or transplant journals (42% of articles). Other specialties included general and internal medicine (16%), endocrinology (diabetes) and metabolism (6.5%), surgery (6.2%), cardiovascular diseases (6.1%), pediatrics (4.3%), and radiology (3.3%). About half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Browsing the top journals is important. However, relevant studies are also scattered across a large range of journals that may not be routinely scanned by busy physicians, and keeping up with this literature requires other continuing education strategies.

[Modern immunosuppression following renal transplantation. Standard or tailor made?]

Renal transplantation is by far the best therapeutic option for end-stage kidney disease with respect to quality of life, psychosocial rehabilitation, and even patient survival. Optimal immunosuppressive therapy should provide effective prophylaxis of both acute rejection and chronic allograft dysfunction. Thus immunosuppressive therapy should help to maintain good renal function and could help to prevent premature death of the recipient. With the introduction of new immunosuppressants over the last decade a dramatic reduction of acute rejection rates from approximately 50% to 15-30% could be achieved. However, the search for novel immunosuppressive drugs continues, drugs which not only lead to effective prevention of acute rejection, but also have an impact on chronic allograft dysfunction and prevent further deterioration of this multifactorial process. Based on a short presentation of the "three signal model" of immunoactivation, the most important mechanisms and characteristics of the presently available immunosuppressants are described. Because the immunosuppressive objectives change over time, a phase-dependent adaptation is necessary. At present, most centers in Germany use an immunosuppressive combination therapy, consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI; cyclosporine or tacrolimus), a glucocorticoid (prednisolone or methylprednisolone), and mycophenolic acid (MPA), which is eventually combined with an antibody (e.g., IL-2R antibody) for induction. In contrast to the clear situation 10 years ago, highly specialized knowledge is required today with respect to mechanism of action, side effects, and potential interactions. This may enable the physician to adopt patient-oriented optimal immunosuppression. In the near future more individualized treatment options will be employed, which are adapted to the characteristics and side effects of the immunosuppressant, as well as to the characteristics of the donor, the recipient, and the transplanted organ such as immunology and ischemia. Another aspect is the reduction or elimination of some immunosuppressants at the earliest possible time. With new diagnostic and genetic markers the relationship between recipient and transplanted organ will be characterized better in the future and therapy will become more individualized. Altogether, these measures as well as optimized supportive therapy will help to further improve the longevity of the transplanted organ.

Long-term results of TPMT activity monitoring in azathioprine-treated renal allograft recipients

Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) is implicated in the metabolism of azathioprine. The consequences of differential TPMT activity induction by azathioprine on the long-term results after renal transplantation were investigated. The erythrocyte TPMT activity in 82 patients on days 0, 7, and 30 was prospectively evaluated. Because various patterns of TPMT activity variation were noted, the population was subsequently divided between inductors (n = 47) and noninductors (n = 35). Data regarding patient and graft survival and acute rejection episodes were collected. Renal allograft assessment was performed at 3 mo and 2 yr to evaluate the renal function and the histologic lesions on routine biopsies. Data regarding azathioprine-related toxicity also were collected. In a subgroup of patients (n = 19), azathioprine blood levels were determined at day 7 and day 30. The graft survival censoring death was statistically improved in TPMT inductor patients when compared with non-TPMT inductors (P < 0.05). Among TPMT inductors, an acute rejection episode was observed in 34% of the patients versus 69% among non-TPMT inductors (P = 0.002). At 3 mo, serum creatinine was significantly lower among TPMT inductors when compared with non-TPMT inductors (123.1 +/- 7.6 and 161.4 +/- 13.9 micromol/L, respectively; P = 0.01). On routine allograft biopsies at 2 yr (n = 61), grade 2 or 3 chronic lesions were present in 19% versus 25%, respectively (P = NS). At days 7 and 30, the azathioprine blood levels were higher among patients who experienced acute rejection (P < 0.02). TPMT activity induction was observed in 57% of renal transplant recipients who received azathioprine. This induction was associated with better graft outcome. The appropriate conversion from azathioprine, which is a pro-drug, into 6-mercaptopurine could explain both better graft outcome and TPMT induction. Assessing the ability of azathioprine metabolism at an individualized level before transplantation may allow a more accurate choice among the different immunosuppressive treatments.

Azathioprine withdrawal in stable lung and heart/lung recipients receiving cyclosporine-based immunosuppression

BACKGROUND

Chronic rejection is the leading cause of graft failure after (heart-) lung transplantation. Therefore, many centers maintain a triple immunosuppressive cyclosporine-based regimen including azathioprine (AZA) during the long-term course after lung transplantation. However, an increased risk of malignancies has been attributed to prolonged immunosuppression, and there is evidence that less intensive immunosuppressive regimens are feasible in the long-term course after other solid organ transplantation. Therefore, we investigated the effects of AZA withdrawal in stable lung transplant recipients.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed to assess the effects of AZA withdrawal in patients who received a lung transplant more than 4 years ago with stable graft function defined by absence of rejection episodes for at least 2 years and no evidence of bronchiolitis obliterans.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients qualified for the study and 7 discontinued AZA. Despite the small number of patients, termination of the study became necessary after 12 months because significantly more grafts showed deteriorating function after withdrawing AZA (4 of 7) compared to recipients continuing a triple therapy (1 of 17; P<0.05). In recipients with deteriorating graft function conventional treatment with high-dose corticosteroids and reinstitution of AZA failed to stop the development of obliterative bronchiolitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data reinforce the importance of a potent immunosuppressive regimen for the maintenance of stable graft function after lung transplantation.

Immunologic Aspects of Transplant Management: Pharmacotherapy and Rejection

The intensivist caring for the critically ill transplant patient must be knowledgeable in the management of immunosuppression or have expert help. Critical illness often has a major impact on the absorption and metabolism of immunosuppressive drugs, increasing or decreasing net immunosuppression. Too little immunosuppression brings the risk of graft loss, while too much increases the morbidity and mortality of serious infection. Optimum management often requires the skillful manipulation of dosage and/or routes of drug delivery. In many cases of life-threatening infection, immunosuppression must be discontinued altogether and restarted prior to significant graft injury. The cost of miscalculation is very high. Loss of a renal, pancreas, or small bowel transplant is tragic, while loss of a heart, lung, or liver is usually fatal. Unfortunately the management of immunosuppression is becoming more complex. As the field of transplantation matures, new immunosuppressants are being introduced. Also, more experience and growing numbers of clinical trials are making the required knowledge base ever larger. Each type of transplant has its own set of evolving immunosuppression strategies. This review presents the basic mechanisms of the most widely used drugs and the dangers of immunosuppression. The drugs are then discussed in the context of liver, small bowel, kidney, pancreas, heart, and lung transplantation. Finally, a brief section on the practical pharmacokinetics of the drugs is presented.

Excellent long-term graft survival in low risk, primary renal allografts treated with prednisolone-avoidance immunosuppression

Primary avoidance of oral corticosteroids for renal transplant recipients is uncommon. The South Australian renal transplant service used a double therapy (DT) regimen of cyclosporin and azathioprine from August 1986 to July 1996 for low risk (first graft, PRA < 50%) allografts. Oral corticosteroid, prednisolone (P), was reserved for severe rejection or two mild rejection episodes, but could be later withdrawn at the physician's discretion. This regimen is associated with more early acute rejection (Russ et al., Clin Transplant 1990: 4: 26). We have now analysed long-term patient survival (PS) and graft survival (GS) for this group. Of 448 transplants in South Australia between August 1986 and July 1996, 295 commenced DT regimen. Ninety-four (31.8%) never received P at any stage post-transplantation (group 1), 96 (32.5%) were placed on P and later weaned (group 2), and 97 (33%) remained on long-term P (group 3). Technical losses, eight (2.7%), within 30 d of transplantation, were excluded from sub-group analysis. PS for the total DT cohort at 1, 5 and 9 yr post-transplantation was 97, 88 and 74%, respectively. GS over the same time period was 88, 75 and 55%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival compared to other 'low risk' grafts in the rest of Australia during the same time period. Mean serum creatinine concentration (CrC) for the DT group at 3 and 6 months and 1, 3, 5 and 10 yr was not significantly different to the rest of the Australian 'low risk' grafts. In the DT cohort, there were 334 acute rejections ( < 90 d) in 206 patients (70%), but only 42 (12.5%) required anti-lymphocyte antibody therapy (OKT3 or ATG) for rejection. PS at 9 yr was not statistically significantly different between groups 1 and 2, but both groups survived better than group 3 (p < 0.0043). GS for group 1 at 1, 5 and 9 yr post-transplantation was 90, 81 and 73%, respectively; for group 2, 98, 87 and 66%, respectively; and for group 3, 84, 63 and 29%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached in group 1 versus 3 (p < 0.001) and group 2 versus 3 (p < 0.001). In summary, a DT regimen in low risk, first renal allografts gives excellent long-term patient and GS and minimises long-term P, despite a high rate of early acute rejection.

Chronic allograft nephropathy: An update

Chronic allograft nephropathy is the most prevalent cause of renal transplant failure in the first post-transplant decade, but its pathogenesis has remained elusive. Clinically, it is characterized by a slow but variable loss of function, often in combination with proteinuria and hypertension. The histopathology is also not specific, but transplant glomerulopathy and multilayering of the peritubular capillaries are highly characteristic. Several risk factors have been identified, such as advanced donor age, delayed graft function, repeated acute rejection episodes, vascular rejection episodes, and rejections that occur late after transplantation. A common feature of chronic allograft nephropathy is that it develops in grafts that have undergone previous damage, although the mechanism(s) responsible for the progressive fibrosis and tissue remodeling has not yet been defined. Hypotheses to explain chronic allograft nephropathy include the immunolymphatic theory, the cytokine excess theory, the loss of supporting architecture theory, and the premature senescence theory. The most effective option to prevent chronic allograft nephropathy is to avoid graft injury from both immune and nonimmune mechanisms.

A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine and steroids with cyclosporine, azathioprine, and steroids in cadaveric renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

In renal transplantation, triple-drug therapy (low-dose cyclosporine [CsA] combined with azathioprine plus steroids) has been replacing double-drug therapy (CsA plus steroids) in clinical practice without much evidence in favor of either therapy. Previous trials comparing the two immunosuppressive regimens gave conflicting results. We attempted to determine whether triple therapy is at least equivalent to double therapy.

METHODS

A randomized trial was performed in 250 adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients, comparing double therapy (CsA [10 mg/kg/day] plus prednisone) with triple therapy (CsA [6 mg/kg/day] plus azathioprine plus prednisone). The median follow-up time was 930 days.

RESULTS

The incidence of acute rejection episodes refractory to treatment was 11% in double therapy and 4% in triple therapy (relative risk reduction: 64%; 95% confidence interval: 5-100%; P=0.035). Patients in the double therapy group required more intensive antirejection treatment, and their pathologic lesions were more severe. The proportion of patients with acute rejection was similar (double therapy: 45% vs. triple therapy: 40%) as was the incidence of chronic renal dysfunction (double therapy: 17% vs. triple therapy: 15.5%), the 4-year graft survival (double therapy: 71% vs. triple therapy: 83%, P=0.089), and patient survival (double therapy: 94% vs. triple therapy: 93%). In 29 patients (23%), 35 episodes of azathioprine-induced leukopenia were recorded, and in 9 of them azathioprine had to be discontinued. The incidence of other adverse events did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy caused fewer episodes of refractory acute rejection episodes and was as efficacious and safe as double therapy.