Cost-effective immunosuppressive options for solid organ transplantation: a guide to lower cost for the renal transplant recipient in the USA

All hands on deck: Hand replantation versus transplantation

Objectives:

Our hands play a remarkable role in our activities of daily living and the make-up of our identities. In the United States, an estimated 41,000 individuals live with upper limb loss. Our expanding experience in limb transplantation—including operative techniques, rehabilitation, and expected outcomes—has often been based on our past experience with replantation. Here, we undertake a systematic review of replantation with transplantation in an attempt to better understand the determinants of outcome for each and to provide a summary of the data to this point.

Methods:

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted PubMed searches from 1964 to 2013 for articles in English. In total, 53 primary and secondary source articles were found to involve surgical repair (either replantation or transplantation) for complete amputations at the wrist and forearm levels. All were read and analyzed.

Results:

Hand replantations and transplantations were compared with respect to pre-operative considerations, surgical techniques, post-operative considerations and outcomes, including motor, sensation, cosmesis, patient satisfaction/quality of life, adverse events/side effects, financial costs, and overall function. While comparison of data is limited by heterogeneity, these data support our belief that good outcomes depend on patient expectations and commitment.

Conclusion:

When possible, hand replantation remains the primary option after acute amputation. However, when replantation fails or is not possible, hand transplantation appears to provide at least equal outcomes. Patient commitment, realistic expectations, and physician competence must coincide to achieve the best possible outcomes for both hand replantation and transplantation.

Sublingual administration improves systemic exposure of tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients: comparison with oral administration

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus (TCR) is an immunosuppressive drug used by oral administration. Intravenous (IV) TCR administration is required under conditions of gastrointestinal diseases or abdominal surgery at the onset of paralytic ileus. The infusion formulation needs a large dilution and therefore a careful technical management during continuous infusion by 24 h and may determine anaphylaxis, cardiac arrhythmia, QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Sublingual (SL) TCR administration was suggested as an alternative route.

DESIGN

The aim of this study was to compare in the same kidney transplanted patients the TCR pharmacokinetic profiles by both the routes coupled with the pharmacoeconomic analysis. The study enrolled eight subjects undergoing renal transplantation and treated with TCR and methylprednisolone. TCR was administered by oral route at the scheduled dosage while the 50% of oral dosage was used by SL route, taking into account the absence of liver first pass.

RESULTS

Except for AUC, which resulted significantly increased after oral administration, all exposure parameters were not significantly different between the two routes of administration. Analysis of dose-adjusted exposure parameters showed significant increases in AUC and Cmin after SL administration confirming a better bioavailability of the SL route compared with oral route. Cost saving was obtained using the SL rather than the IV route of TCR delivery.

CONCLUSION

When oral administration of TCR is not advised, SL delivery represents an attractive option to IV administration.

Low-dose RATG with or without basiliximab in renal transplantation: a matched-cohort observational study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In renal transplantation, peri-operative low-dose rabbit-antithymocyte-globulin (RATG) plus basiliximab induction prevented acute allograft rejection more effectively than post-operative RATG plus basiliximab induction. We investigated the specific antirejection contribution of basiliximab in this context.

METHODS

This single-center, observational, matched-cohort study evaluated allograft rejections (primary outcome), steroid exposure and side effects, GFR (iohexol plasma clearance) and treatment costs in 16 deceased-donor renal transplant recipients induced with RATG (0.5 mg/kg/day) and 32 age-, gender- and treatment-matched reference-patients given RATG plus basiliximab (20 mg on days 0 and 4).

RESULTS

Induction was well tolerated. At 18 months, 8 patients (50%) vs. 3 reference-patients (9.4%) rejected the graft [HR (95% CI): 6.53 (1.73-24.70), p = 0.006]. Difference was significant (p < 0.01) even after adjusting for recipient/donor age and gender, cold ischemia time and HLA mismatches. There were 1 antibody-mediated rejection and 2 moderate cellular rejections in patients vs. none in reference-patients (p = 0.032). The median (interquartile range) prednisone cumulative dose was remarkably higher in patients than reference-patients [4.78 (1.12-6.10) vs. 0.19 (0.18-3.81) grams, p = 0.002]. Three patients vs. 24 reference-patients were off-steroid at study end (p < 0.001). Three patients vs. no reference-patient developed new-onset diabetes (p = 0.003). Both inductions similarly depleted B-cells. Outcomes of AZA- vs. MMF-treated participants were similar. GFR was similar in all groups. Compared to MMF, AZA therapy saved ≈ EUR 2,500/year and by month 14.3 post-transplant compensated basiliximab costs.

CONCLUSION

In renal transplantation, basiliximab plus peri-operative low-dose RATG more efficiently prevented allograft rejection than RATG monotherapy, and minimized steroid exposure and toxicity. AZA- vs MMF-based maintenance immunosuppression largely compensated the extra costs of basiliximab.

History and ethics of hand transplants

Hand transplantation is a form of composite tissue allotransplantation, whereby the hand of a cadaveric donor is transferred to the forearm of an amputee. The aim of such a procedure is to achieve better outcomes in terms of functionality and appearance when compared with prosthetics. The microsurgical techniques required have been well established for many years. In addition, advances in immunosuppressive therapy have meant that hand transplantation is a feasible therapeutic option. However this is not a life-saving procedure, requiring lifelong antirejection treatment with potentially serious side-effects. Hand transplantation is therefore a controversial concept with ethical, financial and psychological implications that need careful consideration. Before this treatment can be fully accepted, further research is still required; this should be directed towards achieving immunological tolerance, while minimizing costs and potential side-effects of post-transplant therapy.