Assessment of glomerular and tubular functions in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine A in combination with either sirolimus or everolimus

Effect of Sirolimus vs. Everolimus on CMV-Infections after Kidney Transplantation-A Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Following renal transplantation, infection with cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common and feared complication. mTOR-inhibitor (mTOR-I) treatment, either alone or in combination with calcineurininhibitors (CNIs), significantly reduces the CMV incidence after organ transplantation. As of now, there is no information on which mTOR-I, sirolimus (SIR) or everolimus (ERL), has a stronger anti-CMV effect. (2) Methods: The current literature was searched for prospective randomized controlled trials in renal transplantation. There were 1164 trials screened, of which 27 could be included (11,655 pts.). We performed a network meta-analysis to analyze the relative risk of different types of mTOR-I treatment on CMV infection 12 months after transplantation compared to CNI treatment. (3) Results: Four different types of mTOR-I treatment were analyzed in network meta-analyses—SIR mono, ERL mono, SIR with CNI, ERL with CNI. The mTOR-I treatment with the strongest anti-CMV effect compared to a regular CNI treatment was ERL in combination with a CNI (relative risk (RR) 0.27, confidence interval (CI) 0.22−0.32, p < 0.0001). The other mTOR-I therapy groups showed a slightly decreased anti-CMV efficacy (SIR monotherapy (mono): RR 0.35, CI 0.22−0.57, p < 0.001; SIR with CNI: RR 0.43, CI 0.29−0.64, p < 0.0001; ERL mono: RR 0.46, CI 0.22−0.93, p = 0.031). (4) Conclusions: The anti-CMV effect of both mTOR-Is (SRL and ERL) is highly effective, irrespective of the combination with other immunosuppressive drugs. Certain differences with respect to the potency against the CMV could be found between SRL and ERL. Data gained from this analysis seem to support that a combination of ERL and CNI has the most potent anti-CMV efficacy.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.

FUTURE WORK

High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.

CONCLUSION

Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Everolimus and sirolimus in transplantation-related but different

INTRODUCTION

The inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) sirolimus and everolimus are used not only as immunosuppressants after organ transplantation in combination with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) but also as proliferation signal inhibitors coated on drug-eluting stents and in cancer therapy. Notwithstanding their related chemical structures, both have distinct pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and toxicodynamic properties.

AREAS COVERED

The additional hydroxyethyl group at the C(40) of the everolimus molecule results in different tissue and subcellular distribution, different affinities to active drug transporters and drug-metabolizing enzymes as well as differences in drug-target protein interactions including a much higher potency in terms of interacting with the mTOR complex 2 than sirolimus. Said mechanistic differences as well as differences found in clinical trials in transplant patients are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

In comparison to sirolimus, everolimus has higher bioavailability, a shorter terminal half-life, different blood metabolite patterns, the potential to antagonize the negative effects of CNIs on neuronal and kidney cell metabolism (which sirolimus enhances), the ability to stimulate mitochondrial oxidation (which sirolimus inhibits) and to reduce vascular inflammation to a greater extent. A head-to-head, randomized trial comparing the safety and tolerability of these two mTOR inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients is merited.

An evaluation of sirolimus in renal transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Sirolimus is a powerful antiproliferative immunosuppressive drug approved for the prevention of kidney allograft rejection. By its unique mechanism of action, sirolimus provides a multitude of clinical potential and has been used effectively in different drug combinations. Extensive experience has been gained regarding the best timing of its application, side effect profile and potential benefits and limitations compared with other immunosuppressive drugs.

AREAS COVERED

The authors evaluate the recent experience with sirolimus in kidney transplantation. Pivotal randomized controlled trials were used to provide an overview with special attention to pharmacokinetic and dynamic aspects of sirolimus, its current clinical use as well as perspectives for its future role.

EXPERT OPINION

Sirolimus enriches the possibilities of immunosuppressive therapies after renal transplantation. Beneficial effects toward kidney function by allowing CNI sparing, lower incidence of malignancies and less viral infections have been suggested. Sirolimus should be used cautiously in de novo patients for reasons of wound healing. An early conversion to a sirolimus-based CNI-free regimen has shown promising results, whereas late conversion is more challenging. Finally, sirolimus-associated side effects are causing tolerability concerns and frequent discontinuations. Future research should aim to better define the therapeutic window and those patients most likely to benefit.

Renal disease in recipients of nonrenal solid organ transplantation

Worldwide, more than 250,000 individuals who have received a liver, heart, lung, or intestinal transplant are living longer. Twenty percent to 25% of these recipients experience perioperative acute renal failure, with 10% to 15% requiring renal replacement therapy. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is also highly prevalent, affecting 30% to 50% of the nonrenal organ transplant population with an annual end-stage renal disease risk of 1.5% to 2.0%. Both acute renal failure and CKD contribute to increased morbidity and premature mortality. The dominant causative factor for renal disorders seen in nonrenal transplant recipients are the calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and rapamycin analogues, which singly or in combination lead to a variety of nephrotoxic injury. However, 25% to 30% of nonrenal transplant recipients with CKD have other conditions such as hypertension, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, diabetes mellitus, and hepatitis C infection as the principal underlying cause. Management strategies for renal disease in the nonrenal transplant recipients include the following: (1) delayed introduction of CNI after graft implantation, (2) withdrawal or minimization of long-term CNI therapy, (3) timely use of an appropriate dialysis modality, and (4) expeditious introduction of supportive measures such as anemia management, phosphate binding therapy, and dietary modification. Compared with maintenance dialysis, kidney transplantation reduces long-term mortality by 60% to 70% in nonrenal transplant recipients with end-stage renal disease.