Endorsement of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines on kidney transplantation: a European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement

KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) is an international independent body aiming to 'improve the care and outcomes of kidney disease patients worldwide, through the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines'. Recently, the KDIGO work group has produced comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for the care of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). The guideline makes recommendations for immunosuppression, graft monitoring, as well as prevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, malignancy and other complications that are common in KTRs, including haematological and bone disorders. Because most guidelines were 'soft' rather than 'strong', and because global guidelines need to be adapted and implemented into the regional context where they are used, the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) Advisory Board appointed a work group of transplant nephrologists and surgeons to review the newest KDIGO guideline and comment on its relevance and applicability for European KTRs. In this article, we concentrate only on those guidelines which we considered worth amending or adapting. All guidelines not mentioned are fully endorsed.

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.

Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in the management of organ transplantation

Tacrolimus (FK-506) is an immunosuppressant agent that acts by a variety of different mechanisms which include inhibition of calcineurin. It is used as a therapeutic alternative to cyclosporin, and therefore represents a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy in organ transplant recipients. Tacrolimus is now well established for primary immunosuppression in liver and kidney transplantation, and experience with its use in other types of solid organ transplantation, including heart, lung, pancreas and intestinal, as well as its use for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT), is rapidly accumulating. Large randomised nonblind multicentre studies conducted in the US and Europe in both liver and kidney transplantation showed similar patient and graft survival rates between treatment groups (although rates were numerically higher with tacrolimus- versus cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in adults with liver transplants), and a consistent statistically significant advantage for tacrolimus with respect to acute rejection rate. Chronic rejection rates were also significantly lower with tacrolimus in a large randomised liver transplantation trial, and a trend towards a lower rate of chronic rejection was noted with tacrolimus in a large multicentre renal transplantation study. In general, a similar trend in overall efficacy has been demonstrated in a number of additional clinical trials comparing tacrolimus- with cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in various types of transplantation. One notable exception is in BMT, where a large randomised trial showed significantly better 2-year patient survival with cyclosporin over tacrolimus, which was primarily attributed to patients with advanced haematological malignancies at the time of (matched sibling donor) BMT. These survival results in BMT require further elucidation. Tacrolimus has also demonstrated efficacy in various types of transplantation as rescue therapy in patients who experience persistent acute rejection (or significant adverse effect's) with cyclosporin-based therapy, whereas cyclosporin has not demonstrated a similar capacity to reverse refractory acute rejection. A corticosteroid-sparing effect has been demonstrated in several studies with tacrolimus, which may be a particularly useful consideration in children receiving transplants. The differences in the tolerability profiles of tacrolimus and cyclosporin may well be an influential factor in selecting the optimal treatment for patients undergoing organ transplantation. Although both drugs have a similar degree of nephrotoxicity, cyclosporin has a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia, while tacrolimus has a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, some types of neurotoxicity (e.g. tremor, paraesthesia), diarrhoea and alopecia.

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus is an important therapeutic option for the optimal individualisation of immunosuppressive therapy in transplant recipients.

Review of immunosuppressive usage in pancreas transplantation

Throughout 1997, nearly 10,000 pancreas transplants have been performed worldwide, with 88% being simultaneous kidney transplants (SKPT). The current 1 yr patient survival rate exceeds 90% and pancreas graft survival (complete insulin independence) rate exceeds 80% for SKPT, 70% for sequential pancreas after kidney transplant (PAKT), and 65% for pancreas transplant alone (PTA). According to registry data, rejection accounts for 32% of graft failures in the first year after pancreas transplantation. However, improvements are expected to continue with the evolution of treatment protocols. Most pancreas transplant centers employ quadruple drug immunosuppression with anti-lymphocyte induction with either a monoclonal or polyclonal antibody agent. In recent years, there has been an overall decline in the use of antibody induction therapy from 90% during the period 1987-1993 to 83% of pancreas transplants performed during 1994-1997. Maintenance immunosuppression is triple therapy consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus), corticosteroids, and an anti-metabolite (AZA or MMF). Prior to 1995, nearly all pancreas transplant recipients were managed with Sandimmune. In the last 2 yr, tacrolimus-based therapy has been used in approximately 20% of cases and a new microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (Neoral) has replaced Sandimmune in contemporary post-transplant immunosuppression. In addition, MMF is replacing AZA as part of the standard immunosuppressive regimen after pancreas transplantation. At present, a number of centers are conducting various trials with new drug combinations including either Neoral or tacrolimus in combination with steroids and MMF with or without antibody induction therapy. From 1994 to 1997, the 1 yr rates of immunologic graft loss have decreased to 2% after SKPT, 9% after PAKT, and 16% after PTA. The current array of new immunosuppressive agents are providing more effective control of rejection and permitting solitary pancreas transplantation to become an accepted treatment option in diabetic patients without advanced complications. The apparent potency of new drug combinations has also resulted in a resurgence of interest in steroid withdrawal. Immunosuppressive strategies will continue to evolve in order to achieve effective control of rejection while minimizing injury to the allograft and risk to the patient. In addition, new regimens must not only address the issue of specific drug toxicities but also long-term economic, metabolic, and quality of life outcomes. Pancreas transplantation will remain an important alternative in the treatment of diabetic patients until other strategies are developed that can provide equal glycemic control with less immunosuppression and overall morbidity.

Cyclosporin nephrotoxicity: pathophysiology and comparison with FK-506

At the end of an era of almost exclusive use of cyclosporin A, there have been significant advances in the understanding of its immunosuppressive effects, whereas there is still uncertainty about the mechanisms underlying its nephrotoxicity. The recently introduced FK-506, in spite of its undeniable clinical advantages, has subsequently been proved to have rather similar nephrotoxicity. This paper reviews recent data on cyclosporin A and FK-506 nephrotoxicity, with emphasis on: first, the haemodynamic, functional and structural features; second, the potential mediators; and third, the relationship with some immunosuppressive mechanisms involved to give insights into the pathophysiology.

Immunosuppression in pancreas transplantation: progress, problems and perspective

Through 1997, over 10,000 pancreas transplants have been performed world-wide, with 88% being simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplants (SKPTs). Current 1-year patient survival exceeds 90% and pancreas graft survival (complete insulin independence) exceeds 80% for SKPT, 70% for sequential pancreas after kidney transplant (PAKT), and 65% for pancreas transplant alone (PTA). According to Registry data, rejection accounts for 32% of graft failures in the first year after pancreas transplantation. However, improving outcomes are expected to continue with the evolution of treatment protocols. Most pancreas transplant centres employ quadruple drug immunosuppression with anti-lymphocyte induction, using either a monoclonal or polyclonal antibody agent. In recent years, there has been an overall decline in the use of antibody-induction therapy from 90% during 1987-93, to 83% of pancreas transplants performed during 1994-97. Maintenance immunosuppression is triple therapy consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus), corticosteroids, and an anti-metabolite such as azathioprine (AZA) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Prior to 1995, nearly all pancreas transplant recipients were managed with Sandimmune. Since 1986, tacrolimus-based therapy has been used in approximately 20% of cases, and a new microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (Neoral) has replaced Sandimmune in contemporary post-transplant immunosuppression. In addition, MMF is replacing AZA as part of the standard immunosuppressive regimen following pancreas transplantation. At present, a number of centres are conducting various trials with new drug combinations including either Neoral or tacrolimus in combination with steroids and MMF, with or without antibody-induction therapy. From 1994 to 1997, the 1-year rates of immunologic graft loss have decreased to 2% after SKPT, 9% after PAKT, and 16% after PTA. The current array of new immunosuppressive agents are providing more effective control of rejection and permitting solitary pancreas transplantation to become an accepted treatment option in diabetic patients without advanced complications. The apparent potency of new drug combinations has also resulted in a resurgence of interest in steroid withdrawal. Immunosuppressive strategies will continue to evolve to achieve effective control of rejection while minimizing injury to the allograft and risk to the patient. In addition, new regimens must not only address the issue of specific drug toxicities, but also long-term economic, metabolic, and quality of life outcomes. Pancreas transplantation will remain an important alternative in the treatment of diabetic patients until other strategies are developed that can provide equal glycaemic control with less immunosuppression and overall morbidity.

Pancreas and pancreas-kidney transplantation

Pancreas transplantation consistently results in an insulin-independent normoglycemic state in insulin-dependent diabetic recipients. Registry data show insulin independence is achieved in 80% of simultaneous kidney and pancreas recipients, more than 70% of pancreas after kidney recipients, and more than 60% of nonuremic pancreas transplant alone recipients. Advances in immunosuppression and careful monitoring for rejection in conjunction with biopsies are largely responsible for improved results. However, complications do occur, and improvements in surgical technique and patient care continue to evolve.