Preservation of graft function in low-risk living kidney transplant recipients treated with a combination of sirolimus and cyclosporine

Immunosuppressive drug combinations after kidney transplantation and post-transplant diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a frequent complication after kidney transplantation (KT). This systematic review investigated the effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on the risk of PTDM. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included KT recipients with any immunosuppression and reported PTDM outcomes up to 1 October 2023. The analysis included 125 RCTs. We found no differences in PTDM risk within induction therapies. In de novo KT, there was an increased risk of developing PTDM with tacrolimus versus cyclosporin (RR 1.71, 95%CI [1.38-2.11]). No differences were observed between tacrolimus+mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) and tacrolimus+MMF/MPA, but there was a tendency towards a higher risk of PTDM in the cyclosporin+mTORi group (RR 1.42, 95%CI [0.99-2.04]). Conversion from cyclosporin to an mTORi increased PTDM risk (RR 1.89, 95%CI [1.18-3.03]). De novo belatacept compared with a calcineurin inhibitor resulted in 50% lower risk of PTDM (RR 0.50, 95%CI [0.32-0.79]). Steroid avoidance resulted in 31% lower PTDM risk (RR 0.69, 95%CI [0.57-0.83]), whereas steroid withdrawal resulted in no differences. Immunosuppression should be decided on an individual basis, carefully weighing the risk of future PTDM and rejection.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the therapy of choice for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with an improvement in survival rates and satisfactory short term graft survival. However, there has been little improvement in long-term survival. The place of target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I) (sirolimus, everolimus), which have different modes of action from other commonly used immunosuppressive agents, in kidney transplantation remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the short and long-term benefits and harms of TOR-I (sirolimus and everolimus) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 20 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which drug regimens, containing TOR-I commenced within seven days of transplant, were compared to alternative drug regimens, were included without age restriction, dosage or language of report.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE MAIN RESULTS: Seventy studies (17,462 randomised participants) were included; eight studies included two comparisons to provide 78 comparisons. Outcomes were reported at six months to three years post transplant. Risk of bias was judged to be low for sequence generation in 25 studies, for allocation concealment in 23 studies, performance bias in four studies, detection bias in 65 studies, attrition bias in 45 studies, selective reporting bias in 48 studies, and for other potential bias in three studies. Risk of bias was judged to be at high risk of bias for sequence generation in two studies, allocation concealment in two studies, performance bias in 61 studies, detection bias in one study, attrition bias in four studies, for selective reporting bias in 11 studies and for other potential risk of bias in 46 studies. Compared with CNI and antimetabolite, TOR-I with antimetabolite probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.98; 19 studies) or malignancies (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48; 10 studies); probably increases graft loss censored for death (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.81; 15 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.04; 15 studies), need to change treatment (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.11; 14 studies) and wound complications (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.36; 12 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); but reduces CMV infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; 13 studies) (high certainty evidence). Compared with antimetabolites and CNI, TOR-I with CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.33; 31 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 26 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 24 studies); and malignancies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 17 studies); probably increases the need to change treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; 25 studies), and wound complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.91; 17 studies); but probably reduces CMV infection (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 25 studies) (moderate certainty evidence). Lower dose TOR-I and standard dose CNI compared with higher dose TOR-I and reduced dose CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78; 9 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20; 8 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13; 8 studies), and CMV infection (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; 5 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to wound complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71; 3 studies), malignancies (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04; 7 studies), and the need to change treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 5 studies) (low certainty evidence). Lower dose of TOR-I compared with higher doses probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; 13 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 12 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 11 studies), CMV infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 9 studies), wound complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 7 studies), and malignancy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.32; 10 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the need to change treatments (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 studies) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether sirolimus and everolimus differ in their effects on kidney function and lipid levels because the certainty of the evidence is very low based on a single small study with only three months of follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In studies with follow-up to three years, TOR-I with an antimetabolite increases the risk of graft loss and acute rejection compared with CNI and an antimetabolite. TOR-I with CNI potentially offers an alternative to an antimetabolite with CNI as rates of graft loss and acute rejection are similar between interventions and TOR-I regimens are associated with a reduced risk of CMV infections. Wound complications and the need to change immunosuppressive medications are higher with TOR-I regimens. While further new studies are not required, longer-term follow-up data from participants in existing methodologically robust RCTs are needed to determine how useful immunosuppressive regimens, which include TOR-I, are in maintaining kidney transplant function and survival beyond three years.

Sirolimus-Based Immunosuppressive Regimens in Renal Transplantation: A Systemic Review

Sirolimus (SRL)-based immunosuppressive regimens have been used for preventing rejection after kidney transplantation. This review analyzes their merits and demerits compared with other conventional regimes from the aspects of acute rejection rate, graft function, as well as patient/graft survival rates. In general, SRL is mostly recommended to be used as conversion therapy from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) after kidney transplantation in most studies. Minimization or withdrawal of cyclosporine A (CsA) could also be considered when it was combined with SRL. SRL can replace mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and the CNI dose should be reduced appropriately in this setting. Quadruple maintenance regimens containing SRL need future study to clarify their superiority. De novo use of low-dose CNI combined with SRL has no apparent merits and thus is not recommended. De novo use of standard-dose CNI combined with SRL followed by maintenance, de novo use of CNI-free regimens, as well as SRL use in delayed graft function (DGF) patients who spare antibody induction and postpone CNI administration should also be avoided. SRL supports steroids withdrawal after kidney transplantation, and SRL combined with tacrolimus is recommended in this setting. Loading dose is recommended when initiating SRL treatment and its trough blood level should be routinely monitored.

Reviewing 15 years of experience with sirolimus

Here, we review 15 years of clinical use of sirolimus in our transplant center, in context with the developing immunosuppressive strategies use worldwide. The majority of studies were conducted in de novo kidney transplant recipients, using sirolimus (SRL) in combination with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs). We also explored steroid (ST) or CNI-sparing therapies, including CNI minimization, elimination, or conversion strategies in combination with mycophenolate (MMF/MPS). Pooled long-term outcomes were comparable with those obtained with CNI and antimetabolite combination. Surprisingly, there are still several areas that need further investigation to improve the risk/benefit profile of SRL in kidney transplantation, including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic drug-to-drug interaction with cyclosporine (CsA) or tacrolimus (TAC), mechanisms of SRL-associated adverse reactions and combinations with other drugs such as belatacept and once-daily TAC, possibly leading to improved long-term adherence. These studies, along with others investigating the benefits of SRL associated lower viral infections and malignancies, are essential as we do not expect the introduction of new immunosuppressive drugs in the near future.

Organization of a High-Volume Kidney Transplant Program???The ???Assembly Line??? Approach

This report describes the organization of a high-volume Brazilian kidney transplant program. With use of an "assembly line" approach, 2,461 kidney transplantations were performed between 1999 and 2004, fulfilling government expectations without compromising the care of the patients. The annual number of kidney transplants increased from 428 to 656 per year. In our Organ Procurement Organization (with 7 million inhabitants), brain death notifications increased from 196 to 461, but less than 25% became actual donors. There are 3,200 patients on the waiting list and recipient selection is based of human leukocyte antigen matching (25 new listings per week). More than 700 first appointments for living donation occur every year. A significant number of recipients are of black race and have been receiving dialysis for long periods of time. The majority of patients are followed locally (100-120 appointments per day). Transplant outcomes among living-donor recipients are comparable to those of large registries, but inferior outcomes have been observed among recipients of deceased-donor organs. However, consistent improvement has been seen in more recent years. The present report also discusses issues related to local regulations and solutions to improve efficiency and outcomes.