A randomised, prospective study on the conversion from cyclosporine-prednisone to cyclosporine-azathioprine at 6 months after renal transplantation

Calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal or tapering for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) can reduce acute transplant rejection and immediate graft loss but are associated with significant adverse effects such as hypertension and nephrotoxicity which may contribute to chronic rejection. CNI toxicity has led to numerous studies investigating CNI withdrawal and tapering strategies. Despite this, uncertainty remains about minimisation or withdrawal of CNI.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of CNI tapering or withdrawal in terms of graft function and loss, incidence of acute rejection episodes, treatment-related side effects (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia) and death.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 11 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where drug regimens containing CNI were compared to alternative drug regimens (CNI withdrawal, tapering or low dose) in the post-transplant period were included, without age or dosage restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 studies that involved 16,156 participants. Most were open-label studies; less than 30% of studies reported randomisation method and allocation concealment. Studies were analysed as intent-to-treat in 60% and all pre-specified outcomes were reported in 54 studies. The attrition and reporting bias were unclear in the remainder of the studies as factors used to judge bias were reported inconsistently. We also noted that 50% (47 studies) of studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.We classified studies into four groups: CNI withdrawal or avoidance with or without substitution with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR-I); and low dose CNI with or without mTOR-I. The withdrawal groups were further stratified as avoidance and withdrawal subgroups for major outcomes.CNI withdrawal may lead to rejection (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.12; moderate certainty evidence), may make little or no difference to death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; moderate certainty), and probably slightly reduces graft loss (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; low quality evidence). Hypertension was probably reduced in the CNI withdrawal group (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; low certainty), while CNI withdrawal may make little or no difference to malignancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30; low certainty), and probably makes little or no difference to cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.45; low certainty)CNI avoidance may result in increased acute rejection (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.49; low certainty) but little or no difference in graft loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16; low certainty). Late CNI withdrawal increased acute rejection (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.48; moderate certainty) but probably reduced graft loss (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, low certainty).Results were similar when CNI avoidance or withdrawal was combined with the introduction of mTOR-I; acute rejection was probably increased (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.78; moderate certainty) and there was probably little or no difference in death (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.36, moderate certainty). mTOR-I substitution may make little or no difference to graft loss (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; low certainty), probably makes little of no difference to hypertension (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; moderate), and probably reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and malignancy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; low certainty). Lymphoceles were increased with mTOR-I substitution (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.21; low certainty).Low dose CNI combined with mTOR-I probably increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (MD 6.24 mL/min, 95% CI 3.28 to 9.119; moderate certainty), reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.02; moderate certainty), and made little or no difference to acute rejection (RR 1.13 ; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.40; moderate certainty). Hypertension was decreased (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; low certainty) as was CMV (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.06; low certainty). Low dose CNI plus mTOR-I makes probably makes little of no difference to malignancy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.53; low certainty) and may make little of no difference to death (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.90; moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CNI avoidance increased acute rejection and CNI withdrawal increases acute rejection but reduced graft loss at least over the short-term. Low dose CNI with induction regimens reduced acute rejection and graft loss with no major adverse events, also in the short-term. The use of mTOR-I reduced CMV infections but increased the risk of acute rejection. These conclusions must be tempered by the lack of long-term data in most of the studies, particularly with regards to chronic antibody-mediated rejection, and the suboptimal methodological quality of the included studies.

Cardiovascular risk factors following renal transplant

Kidney transplantation is the gold-standard treatment for many patients with end-stage renal disease. Renal transplant recipients (RTRs) remain at an increased risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events compared to the general population, although rates are lower than those patients on maintenance haemodialysis. Death with a functioning graft is most commonly due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and therefore this remains an important therapeutic target to prevent graft failure. Conventional CV risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension and renal dysfunction remain a major influence on CVD in RTRs. However it is now recognised that the morbidity and mortality from CVD are not entirely accounted for by these traditional risk-factors. Immunosuppression medications exert a deleterious effect on many of these well-recognised contributors to CVD and are known to exacerbate the probability of developing diabetes, graft dysfunction and hypertension which can all lead on to CVD. Non-traditional CV risk factors such as inflammation and anaemia have been strongly linked to increased CV events in RTRs and should be considered alongside those which are classified as conventional. This review summarises what is known about risk-factors for CVD in RTRs and how, through identification of those which are modifiable, outcomes can be improved. The overall CV risk in RTRs is likely to be multifactorial and a complex interaction between the multiple traditional and non-traditional factors; further studies are required to determine how these may be modified to enhance survival and quality of life in this unique population.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted during the last two decades in order to avoid morbidity in kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown significant increases in acute rejection and an increase in graft failure rates. Steroid avoidance in kidney transplantation is increasingly attempted and the possible benefits or harms have never been a subject of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of steroid withdrawal or avoidance in patients receiving a kidney transplant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, references lists and abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) of steroid avoidance or withdrawal were included providing that one treatment arm consisted in steroid avoidance or withdrawal and intention-to-treat rates of acute rejection and graft failure were clearly established after steroid avoidance or use or withdrawal or continuation. Observational studies were tabulated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs (5949 participants). Steroid-sparing strategies showed no effect on mortality or graft loss including death. Patients on any steroid-sparing strategy showed a higher risk of graft loss excluding death than those with conventional steroid use (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52), especially in those not receiving MMF/Myf or everolimus (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.90). Acute rejection was more frequent with a steroid-sparing strategy (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.40) and more frequent after steroid withdrawal or avoidance when compared with standard steroid treatment when cyclosporin (CsA) was used. Steroid-sparing and withdrawal strategies showed benefits in reducing antihypertensive drug need, serum cholesterol, antihyperlipidaemic drug need, new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) requiring any treatment and cataracts. Steroid avoidance did not alter serum cholesterol, but was associated with less frequent NODAT requiring any treatment. Cardiovascular events were reduced with steroid avoidance. Reduced antihypertensive drug need and serum cholesterol were similar with CsA or tacrolimus (TAC). Reduced antihyperlipidaemic drug need was only evident with TAC, whereas the reduction in NODAT requiring any treatment was only evident with CsA. Infection was lower in steroid-sparing patients using CsA (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). NODAT requiring any treatment was less frequent with steroid avoidance than with steroid withdrawal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms that steroid avoidance and steroid withdrawal strategies in kidney transplantation are not associated with increased mortality or graft loss despite an increase in acute rejection. These immunosuppression strategies may allow safe steroid avoidance or elimination a few days after kidney transplantation if antibody induction treatment is prescribed or after three to six months if such induction is not used.

Effect of immunosuppressive agents on long-term survival of renal transplant recipients: focus on the cardiovascular risk

In the control of acute rejection, attention is being focused more and more on the long-term adverse effects of the immunosuppressive agents used. Since cardiovascular disease is the main cause of death in renal transplant recipients, optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors is essential in the long-term management of these patients. Unfortunately, several commonly used immunosuppressive drugs interfere with the cardiovascular system. In this review, the cardiovascular adverse effects of the immunosuppressive agents currently used for maintenance immunosuppression are thoroughly discussed. Optimising immunosuppression means finding a balance between efficacy and safety. Corticosteroids induce endothelial dysfunction, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes mellitus, and impair fibrinolysis. The use of corticosteroids in transplant recipients is undesirable, not only because of their cardiovascular effects, but also because they induce such adverse effects as osteoporosis, obesity, and atrophy of the skin and vessel wall. Calcineurin inhibitors are the most powerful agents for maintenance immunosuppression. The calcineurin inhibitor ciclosporin (cyclosporine) not only induces these same adverse effects as corticosteroids but is also nephrotoxic. Tacrolimus has a more favourable cardiovascular risk profile than ciclosporin and is also less nephrotoxic. It has little or no effect on blood pressure and serum lipids; however, its diabetogenic effect is more prominent in the period immediately following transplantation, although at maintenance dosages, the diabetogenic effect appears to be comparable to that of ciclosporin. The diabetogenic effect of tacrolimus can be managed by reducing the dose of tacrolimus and early corticosteroid withdrawal. The effect of tacrolimus on endothelial function has not been completely elucidated. The proliferation inhibitors azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) have little effect on the cardiovascular system. Yet, indirectly, by inducing anaemia, they may lead to left ventricular hypertrophy. MMF is an attractive alternative to azathioprine because of its higher potency and possibly lower risk of malignancies. Sirolimus also induces anaemia, but may be promising because of its antiproliferative features. Whether the hyperlipidaemia induced by sirolimus counteracts its beneficial effects is, as yet, unknown. It may be combined with MMF, however, initial attempts resulted in severe mouth ulcers.

The metabolic effects of cyclosporin and tacrolimus

The introduction of cyclosporin and, more recently, tacrolimus in the immunosuppression of transplanted patients has lead to prolonged graft survival and increased patients' life expectancy. It has been therefore possible to evaluate the effects of long-term treatment with these drugs and metabolic alterations in patients on cyclosporin or tacrolimus have been reported by several authors. In particular, the use of these drugs is associated with abnormalities of glucose and lipid metabolism. Post-transplant diabetes is more common with tacrolimus, probably due to more marked effects on the pancreatic beta-cells, whereas increased levels of cholesterol and triglycerides are more frequently associated with cyclosporin treatment, even though, in this latter case, steroid treatment seems to play a major role. Comparison and intervention studies must be planned to evaluate the best therapeutical approaches to control these abnormalities and to assess the possibility to further increase graft and patient survival by appropriate treatment of diabetes and hyperlipidemia.